BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Contingencies Fund 2009-10

Resolved,
	That there be laid before this House Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 2009-10,
	showing-
	(1) a balance sheet;
	(2) a cashflow statement; and
	(3) notes to the account; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor
	General thereon.- (Mr Vara.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked-

Rail Network

Chris Skidmore: What steps he is taking to make Britain's railway system more financially viable.

Philip Hammond: Sir Roy McNulty's review of value for money on the railway has produced a scoping study that identifies that the UK's railway is, prima facie, up to 40% more expensive than railways elsewhere in Europe. We must adjust to a world in which our aspirations for a successful railway have to be met from within a much tighter public spending envelope. I have therefore asked Sir Roy to accelerate his work looking at the drivers of cost across the industry, and to produce recommendations for creating a sustainable railway with growing passenger usage and declining subsidy.

Chris Skidmore: According to the parliamentary report "Transport in the South West", the south-west has been hit with an increase in the price of unregulated fares. The report states that some rail fares between Swindon and London-a distance of only 77 miles-are the highest for a comparable distance anywhere in Europe. Will my right hon. Friend consider the impact of unregulated fares, especially in Bristol and my constituency of Kingswood, in future rail policy decisions?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. About 60% of rail journeys are undertaken using regulated fares, which are governed by the formula imposed by the Department for Transport, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has today initiated a consultation on future franchising strategy, and we can certainly take my hon. Friend's representation as a response to that consultation.

Louise Ellman: The inefficiencies identified by Sir Roy McNulty must be addressed as a matter of urgency, but does the Secretary of State agree that passengers, and indeed freight, must not be priced off the railway, and that essential investment, such as electrification, must go ahead?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support for the review and the work that Sir Roy McNulty is doing, and I am glad that she recognises the urgency of ensuring that our railway is affordable and sustainable, so that it can attract the investment that it needs. I agree with her that we need a sustainable railway with growing passenger numbers and growing freight usage.

David Evennett: Would my right hon. Friend agree that we want a sector that not only is financially sound, but delivers a better quality of service for passengers?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is, once again, absolutely right. The objective must be to have a railway that is responsive to the needs of its customers, generating viability by responding to those needs-in fact, a railway that does what businesses throughout the economy do if they are to be successful and sustainable.

William Bain: I agree with the Secretary of State that a central issue for the financial viability of the railways is the Government's future policy on fare increases. The coalition agreement commits the Government to fair increases in rail ticket costs. Will the Secretary of State confirm recent reports that he has proposed to the Treasury changing the formula on capped fares and season tickets for next year from the retail prices index plus 1% to as much as RPI plus 5%? Does he not understand how unfair and unreasonable a fares hike of up to 10% will be to millions of hard-pressed commuters across the country if he cannot give an assurance to the House that every penny in increased fare revenues will be reinvested in the new rolling stock and capital projects that our railway system so badly needs?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman got to the nub of the issue in his last sentence. The coalition agreement commits us to a policy of fair fares, and we are committed to ensuring that fares are fair for rail users. No decisions have been made as yet about future fare increases, but he correctly identifies that, as a result of the spending review precipitated by the fiscal crisis that we have inherited, there may have to be a trade-off between fares and continuing vital investment in our railway. I have said that it would be wrong to rule out, ahead of the spending review, any change to the fare policy.

Rail Franchising

Nick de Bois: What progress has been made on his Department's review of rail franchising; and if he will make a statement.

Iain Stewart: What progress has been made on the Government's review of rail franchising; and if he will make a statement.

Brandon Lewis: What progress has been made on the Government's review of rail franchising; and if he will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: The Government today launched their consultation on the future of rail franchising policy. Our proposed reforms will lead to longer, more flexible franchises to incentivise private sector investment in the railways, which will benefit passengers and improve value for money.

Nick de Bois: Given the current poor standard of commuter service that my constituents in Enfield North receive from National Express, as evidenced by the lowest average customer satisfaction rates across the south-east, how will our franchising proposals improve the experience for passengers in my constituency and elsewhere?

Theresa Villiers: We will ensure that the new rail franchising system imposes on train operators demanding performance requirements, based on passenger outcomes and passenger satisfaction. Operators that do not meet those demanding requirements will face serious sanctions that will include, in the most serious cases, termination of the franchise. We believe that longer franchises will lead to more private sector investment and the improvements to stations and railways that passengers want, to improve their journeys. Longer franchises will also enable train operators to build longer-term working relationships with Network Rail, which are so vital to ensure that our railways are run efficiently and deliver value for money.

Iain Stewart: Many of my constituents in Milton Keynes are angry that despite paying about £5,000 for annual season tickets and having undergone years of misery as the west coast main line was upgraded, they are still denied access to Virgin trains at peak hours; the trains either do not stop at all or-perversely-they do stop, but only to let people off, not on. The long-term solution is the extra capacity that High Speed 2 will deliver, but will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that when the west coast main line franchise comes up for renewal in 2012, she will ensure that my constituents have fair access to high-speed services?

Theresa Villiers: All representations from the affected communities will be taken on board as the decisions are made. We hope that what will result from the rail franchising reforms on which we are consulting at the moment is a better and more intelligent and flexible approach to timetabling. That will enable the demands of passengers to be more readily met than they are by the current inflexible system. My hon. Friend is right that the long-term solution has to be a new high-speed rail line. There will come a time in the not-too-distant future when the west coast main line will be simply full to bursting and we will need to provide extra capacity. That will release more space for commuting and stopping services on the west coast main line.

Brandon Lewis: The tourist industry in Great Yarmouth is worth almost £500 million, yet the train station is not exactly a welcoming gateway to our town. Residents would like a better station. Will the Minister give some assurance to the residents of Great Yarmouth that under the new franchise agreement we will be able to put some onus on the franchisee and Network Rail, to make sure that they can invest in things such as the stations themselves, so that we can get a better train station for Great Yarmouth?

Theresa Villiers: I recall the discussions that we had on this issue when I visited my hon. Friend's constituency. I believe that the issue is a prime example of how the reforms that we are proposing could yield significant benefits for passengers. They will give the opportunity for private sector investment in stations such as Great Yarmouth's. At the moment the franchise is of about seven years, and that simply does not give the certainty needed for private sector investment to pay for itself during the franchise. With longer franchises, we can expect more station improvements of the sort that my hon. Friend wants.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Minister agree to meet a small delegation led by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) to discuss the Nuckle project in Coventry? The situation has been going on for a number of years and it needs resolving one way or another.

Theresa Villiers: Yes, I shall be happy to meet that delegation.

Kelvin Hopkins: Given that franchising has failed already, many more franchises are going to fail under what is likely to be a much harsher financial regime. Is it not time to bring things in-house and begin to recreate the state railway systems that operate so well and so much more cheaply on the continent of Europe?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman's views on the railways are well known, although I am afraid that I do not share them. It would have been impossible for there to have been the significant growth in passenger numbers that we have seen since privatisation without the benefits that private sector innovation and enterprise have brought. Reversing things and renationalising the railways would be a retrograde step.

Sadiq Khan: I note from the Order Paper that there are five identical questions on rail franchises from new MPs no doubt keen to impress their Whips. Half an hour before oral questions we had a press release from the Department for Transport announcing a consultation on the new rail franchises. Will the Minister confirm that in the new consultation that she has announced this morning, there will not be any barriers to stop new models, such as mutuals and co-operatives, from taking over franchises?

Theresa Villiers: There would be no barriers to mutuals and co-operatives bidding for franchises if they fulfilled the criteria. All franchise bids will be judged objectively on the quality of the services they will provide for passengers and value for the taxpayer.

Port of Dover

Charlie Elphicke: What plans he has for the future of the port of Dover; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Penning: Dover harbour board has submitted a transfer scheme to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If-I reiterate if-that is approved, that will allow the board to privatise the port of Dover.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the Minister for conducting this review. Will it consider the community's bid to buy the port of Dover and turn it into Dover's people's port? It is important that people know that the big society is not just about cycle paths, canal-side tow tracks and things like that-the big society is, well, big. It should include the port of Dover, and deprived communities should benefit as much as well-off communities.

Michael Penning: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his stalwart and continuing hard work on behalf of his constituents and his continued view on where Dover port should go. The consultation that I announced yesterday is part of the manifesto commitment to allow local people, businesses and the port to ensure that there is as much information as possible in the public domain, including the proposals on the people's port.

Derek Twigg: The future of the important port of Dover will be very much influenced and helped by improving transport links and access to it, particularly from the north-west. Does the Minister think it important, therefore, that the proposed Mersey Gateway is given the go-ahead to improve that access?

Michael Penning: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but the key to this question is Dover. He is asking a separate question, and if he wants to write to me, I will be more than happy to answer it.

Environmental Groups

Karen Bradley: What discussions he has had with representatives of environmental groups on transport issues since his appointment.

Norman Baker: Since May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other members of the Department's ministerial team have had a number of meetings with environmental groups at which a wide range of transport issues have been discussed.

Karen Bradley: I thank the Minister for his response. Many people living in rural areas such as Staffordshire Moorlands have no alternative but to use the private car. Will the Minister provide more details about his discussions with the environmental groups that he has been meeting regarding how to promote alternative transport in rural areas to encourage carbon reduction and promote economic growth?

Norman Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She is right that in rural areas it is difficult to find alternatives to the private car, but there are examples across the country, not least in my constituency, where voluntary organisations have come together to form effectively operating bus routes, and there is a good community transport network, with dial-a-ride and other such services. We are also investigating in the Department alternatives to travel, including the roll-out of broadband and home working to enable those in rural areas to benefit from society as a whole. Ultimately, of course, local authorities are best placed to decide on local transport polices, and the Government's policy of removing ring-fencing will enable them to respond more sensitively to issues such as that which my hon. Friend raises.

Christopher Leslie: Environmental groups and, earlier this year, the Transport Committee have highlighted the fact that electrification of the midland mainline would bring great benefits in terms of changing rolling stock and improving the service, as well as the environmental impact. When will the Government prioritise the necessary "stitch in time" investment in the electrification of the midland mainline?

Norman Baker: The Government are committed to electrification of the railways and believe that that is sensible in order to remove carbon emissions from the transport sector, in so far as possible, and to improve the conditions and experience for passengers. Obviously, any decisions on that and other matters are subject to the spending review, but that is the direction of travel that we wish to follow.

Martin Horwood: One voluntary sector organisation that Ministers will want to meet is the Campaign for Better Transport, whose new report, "Smarter Cuts", shows a rather better understanding of the state of public finances than that of some people in this House. It emphasises the need for cuts that are consistent with our need to meet carbon emission reduction targets and deliver long-term value locally as well as nationally. Will Ministers actively consider this important and useful report?

Norman Baker: We are very happy to consider that report. I have already met representatives of the Campaign for Better Transport in the course of my ministerial duties. My hon. Friend is right. In this difficult spending review and the process afterwards, we must ensure that we prioritise job creation that is green, and ensure simultaneously that we cut carbon. In addition, the Government's localism agenda, which devolves power to local authorities, will enable us to respond more actively to the points that my hon. Friend correctly makes.

Kerry McCarthy: Many environmental groups were quite concerned when the Secretary of State, on first taking office, declared that he was going to end the war on motorists. That perhaps did not show quite the right set of priorities in putting environmental issues at the top of the agenda. May I urge the Minister to work with groups such as Sustrans on alternatives to motoring and on ensuring that there are green alternatives where motoring is the only option?

Norman Baker: The Secretary of State was concerned about issues such as private sector wheel clamping, which had led to unfair treatment of motorists. That view is shared across the coalition. He is also concerned to ensure that we decarbonise road transport and achieve carbon gains from the roll-out of electric vehicles, for example. There is no difference at all between our positions on that. We have a coherent transport policy that will deliver jobs and carbon reduction.

Intercity Express Programme

Michael Crockart: What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department's policy of Sir Andrew Foster's report on the intercity express programme.

Philip Hammond: My statement to the House of 6 July announced that a decision on the future of the intercity express programme would be made as part of the spending review announcement in October, and that the Government would use the intervening time to pause for reflection and a fresh, detailed analysis, including a review of the alternatives in line with Sir Andrew's recommendations.

Michael Crockart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response, but given that the country and indeed his Department continue to suffer from significant budgetary pressures, would it not be better to cancel the IEP programme and extend the life of our InterCity 125 trains, which have performed very well over the years, so that we can continue to invest in matters such as upgrading track infrastructure and high-speed rail, which would deliver significant economic benefits?

Philip Hammond: The previous Government commissioned a report from Sir Andrew Foster, which has now been delivered. It was a detailed piece of work containing a lot of recommendations, and one of Sir Andrew's suggestions was that we should review the possibility of an upgrade and life extension of the existing 125 fleet. That is one option that we will consider during the pause that I mentioned.

Phil Wilson: If the intercity express programme survives the comprehensive spending review, Hitachi intends to build the trains in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency, creating hundreds of jobs there and thousands in the manufacturing supply chain. It would be one of the biggest investments in the north-east since Nissan. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me and a delegation of north-east businessmen and trade unionists so that we can get the point across about how important the scheme is to the north-east of England?

Philip Hammond: I am always happy to meet Members, and I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I can tell him that I met the president of Hitachi recently on his visit from Tokyo, and that I have met the Japanese ambassador, and they forcefully made the same points as him. We will of course take them into account.
	I should perhaps say that Hitachi is also interested in other rail projects in the UK, and we have heard very encouraging signs that the company intends to establish a serious presence in the UK as part of our future rail infrastructure development.

Sadiq Khan: The Secretary of State will be aware that as a direct result of our investment, more people are using our railways than at any time since the 1940s. That is good for the environment and for tackling congestion and all its consequences. Continuing with our programme of additional rolling stock will not only lead to more jobs but be good for British manufacturing and growth. It is also a good way to continue to encourage more people to leave their cars and use our rail network. Will he aggressively lobby the Treasury for more investment in rolling stock, rather than listen to some of his hon. Friends who want cuts in additional rolling stock?

Philip Hammond: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is conflating the debate on the high-level output specification rolling stock programme with that on the intercity express programme, but once again he shows a failure to recognise the reality of the situation that we have inherited from the previous Government. We have to deal with the fiscal crisis facing this country and prioritise investment in matters that will support economic growth and the decarbonisation of the economy. We will do that job effectively, and he will hear the result once the spending review is announced in October.

A64

Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on upgrading the A64 between York and Scarborough; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Penning: As well as verbal representations from my hon. Friend and from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), I have received two letters that the former has forwarded to me and two from the latter.

Anne McIntosh: Having newly been elected to Rillington and Filey, I am very aware of their concerns, particularly about road safety in Rillington. Will the Under-Secretary look favourably on reviewing any potential upgrade in the long term, but take measures in the short term that will save lives at Rillington, and use the opportunity to green the economy and improve the quality of life for people all along the route?

Michael Penning: I congratulate my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby on bringing the matter to my attention. The upgrade would cost £500 million, but the local authority has made no representations for regional funding allocations since 2006. I will look at measures as they are presented. However, while the spending review is still going on, no commitments can be made.

Flight Cancellations

John Robertson: What estimate he has made of the number of passenger flights cancelled as a result of travel agents going into administration in the latest period for which figures are available.

Theresa Villiers: In the year to 31 March 2010, 29 companies licensed by the air travel organiser's licence scheme failed. Under the ATOL scheme, managed by the Civil Aviation Authority, 2,445 passengers were able to complete their holiday and return home without charge. A further 45,114 were entitled to full refunds.

John Robertson: The Minister will know that 180 passengers were stranded at Glasgow airport on Friday, thanks to the collapse of Goldtrail. There were also 16,000 people stranded abroad. How does she propose to try to help those people get compensation? In some cases, they have been told that they will have to wait for at least two years before they get their money back. How can she stop those companies causing such disruption and ensure that people get home as quickly as possible?

Theresa Villiers: The CAA is working hard to repatriate the people affected by the Goldtrail failure, which has caused significant anxiety and disruption to people's holiday plans. Our officials are working hard with the CAA to ensure that that repatriation effort goes well. We are also urging the CAA to ensure that lessons are learned from XL and the long time it took to process claims. The CAA urges all those who are ATOL protected to submit the relevant documentation so that refunds can be processed as quickly as possible. In the longer term, we need a bigger reform of the way in which the system works.

Jane Ellison: To refer my right hon. Friend to earlier answers on rail franchising-

Mr Speaker: Order. We cannot go into that. We are dealing with a specific question about cancellation of passenger flights, on which I thought the hon. Lady wanted to contribute. Never mind-we will move on.

East Coast Main Line

Hugh Bayley: What plans he has for the future of the franchise for the east coast main line rail service.

Philip Hammond: The Government intend to let a new franchise to return the operation of east coast main line rail services to the private sector. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State launched a franchising review this morning, seeking views on the most appropriate options to secure longer-term investment. In the meantime, services will continue to be provided by the East Coast Main Line Company Ltd, which the Department owns in its entirety.

Hugh Bayley: The headquarters of the east coast rail service has been based in York since the 19th century because logistically it is the right place to be. Will the Secretary of State examine the case for reducing uncertainty for the key business partners of the east coast train operating company by confirming that the new franchisee, when appointed, will be required to keep the headquarters of the business in York?

Philip Hammond: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention on behalf of his constituents and I understand the concerns that the uncertainty will cause. However, it would be wrong, in view of the franchising consultation that my right hon. Friend the Minister has announced today, for me to start making prescriptive statements about what a future franchisee under an as yet undetermined franchising regime will be required to do.

Rail Franchising

Peter Aldous: What progress has been made on the Government's review of rail franchising; and if he will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier.

Peter Aldous: Will the Minister confirm that the review of the Greater Anglia franchise will recognise the vital importance of the east Suffolk line from Ipswich to Lowestoft, and the need for both an hourly service along the whole line and the reintroduction of through trains to London, which are being withdrawn in December?

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be wise for me to start making timetabling decisions at the Dispatch Box. However, we are determined that the franchising reform, on which we will consult in the next few weeks, will deliver improvements for passengers, improve train operators' ability to respond flexibly to increases in passenger demand on particular routes and help deliver the private sector investment to provide vital enhancements to our railways.

Emma Reynolds: Given that current legislation prevents organisations and companies that do not yet run rail franchises from bidding for them, will the Government consider changing it in their review to allow mutuals and co-operatives to bid for future franchises?

Theresa Villiers: I think that that question has been dealt with already. If mutuals and co-operatives can satisfy the requirements of the franchising process, they will be permitted to bid.

Jane Ellison: I think this is the appropriate moment to ask my question, Mr Speaker. In her discussions with rail franchises and franchisees, will my right hon. Friend ask them whether they will consider bringing longer trains through stations whose platforms have not been lengthened when they have available rolling stock? That is common on the continent, but we do not do it here, and it would greatly help at overcrowded stations such as Wandsworth Town station in my constituency.

Theresa Villiers: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's strong campaigns for rail services in her constituency, and our visit to Clapham Junction railway station was particularly informative. She makes a good point about the more flexible use of capacity, and the train operators and Network Rail would certainly do well to take it on board. I suggest she raises it further with them.

Cycle Helmets

Annette Brooke: What recent representations he has received on a compulsory requirement on cyclists under 16 years old to wear cycle helmets.

Michael Penning: I recently met representatives of the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who told me in no uncertain terms that they would like wearing cycle helmets to be compulsory for children under 16.

Annette Brooke: I am sure the Minister shares my concern at the last set of figures for 2009, which show that for under-16s, serious injuries are up to 489 and that there were 16 deaths. Will the Minister give the House some information on the review of cycle helmet effectiveness that was planned for later this year? How will he make progress on striking the balance between encouraging cycling but, more importantly, encouraging child safety?

Michael Penning: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this subject up. It is ever so important that we encourage more people to take up cycling, particularly young people, but at the same time, we must not scare them off by trying to force them to wear helmets, recognising the peer pressure on them. The Department ensured straight away that all its videos, DVDs and anything it broadcasts on the internet do not feature children under 16 without a helmet. That is the sort of message we need to send. Compulsion would be almost impossible to enforce, but we need to work to educate more young people to wear helmets.

Jim Fitzpatrick: On enforcement and the increase in cycling in recent years, which is set to continue because of the previous Government's investment, is the Minister holding discussions with his colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office on policing cyclists? I am referring particularly to the minority of dangerous cyclists who get the rest of us a bad name by cycling on pavements and breaking the basic rules of the road. How will we enforce safe cycling?

Michael Penning: Any cyclist who breaks the law and gives the former Minister a bad name needs to be brought before the courts. We see such behaviour on a regular basis, particular in urban areas and at lights, where people ignore the Road Traffic Acts. The police should enforce the rules on cyclists the same as they would on any other road user. The law needs to be used.

Airport Security

Gareth Johnson: What guidance his Department provides on the searching of religious headwear at airports.

Philip Hammond: There is a large and well-integrated Sikh community in the UK. Special arrangements to take account of their headwear have existed at least since the introduction of compulsory motorcycle helmets. On 29 April, the European Union altered the rules on the searching of religious headwear at airports, and this has provoked a furious reaction from members of the Sikh community. On 25 June, I instructed UK airports that they should temporarily revert to the previous arrangements, despite the EU rules. The Sikh community has recognised this positive step and we are now working with them and with the EU to identify a suitable way forward.

Gareth Johnson: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is aware of the EU's initiative that means that turbans can be searched and, indeed, unravelled by airport security officers. Does he agree that we need an approach that protects the security of travellers, but that also fully recognises the importance of turbans to the followers of the Sikh religion?

Philip Hammond: I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. The ultimate solution probably lies in the introduction of scanners as a primary means of security screening at our airports. At the moment, that cannot be done under EU rules. Part of my discussion with the EU is seeking to persuade it that we can resolve the particular problems of religious headwear by addressing the wider issue of adopting scanners as a primary screening method.

A14

Philip Hollobone: When he expects to announce his Department's decision on the planned widening by the Highways Agency of the A14 around Kettering.

Michael Penning: All expenditure on the strategic road network is being considered under the spending review. When the outcome is known in the autumn, I hope to provide my hon. Friend with greater clarity on the future of this scheme.

Philip Hollobone: This project is very important to my constituents in Kettering, so may I draw to the Minister's attention as he makes up his mind the fact that the road is already at capacity, with 70,000 vehicles a day going round the town? That section of road is actually three roads in one-the A6, the A43 and the A14.

Michael Penning: Not only are there 70,000 vehicles a day, but 20% are HGVs, which is 10% higher than the average in the UK. The project will cost between £86 million and £142 million. When the spending review is over, we will assess the problems that Kettering is having because of that huge amount of traffic.

Topical Questions

Daniel Poulter: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Philip Hammond: Since I last answered departmental questions, we have announced a new framework for the economic regulation of airports; our south-east airports taskforce has commenced work; we have announced the sale of High Speed 1; and we have launched a £15 million fund to incentivise the purchase of low-carbon buses. I have also prepared and submitted a spending review bid to the Treasury.

Daniel Poulter: I thank the Minister of State for her earlier answer in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) in respect of recognising the importance of the East Suffolk line to the future prosperity of central and eastern Suffolk. Part of improving the infrastructure is a vital stretch of track called the Beccles loop, which would enable a future franchisee to run a full London to Lowestoft service. May we count on the Secretary of State's support in pursuing the funding for that vital stretch of track?

Philip Hammond: Any future proposals for rail enhancements will be considered in the usual way in setting the output requirements for control period 5, which will define Network Rail's investment programme from 2014 onwards.

Sadiq Khan: More than 1 million Londoners are entitled to Labour's freedom pass and more than 11 million older and disabled people in England are entitled to Labour's concessionary bus pass. Pass holders have been made anxious by reports in the media of the submission made to the Treasury by the Secretary of State in relation to the comprehensive spending review. The CSR is three months away, so can he reassure those anxious older and disabled citizens that he has not submitted, in his job application/CSR bid, any change in the eligibility requirements for those who receive the bus pass?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman refers to two separate things. The arrangements in London are of course the responsibility of the Conservative Mayor of London, and I cannot answer for the decisions that he will make on the operation of the scheme in London. With regard to the national scheme, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have both made clear their commitment to the scheme in its current form. It is enshrined in primary legislation and we have no plans to change it.

Andrew George: The Chancellor promised that the vulnerable would be protected from budget cuts, but I know that Ministers will be well aware that there has been much speculation about the future viability of the bus service operators grant, which is clearly essential to many marginal rural services, the sustainability of which would be called into question if that were to be in any way cut. What reassurance can Ministers give me and my constituents that those rural services, which are essential-

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has reached a question mark.

Norman Baker: I recognise the importance that many attach to the bus service operators grant. The Government intend to try to increase the number of people using the bus. However, we also want to get a fair deal for the taxpayer and the passenger, and that is the direction of travel that we wish to pursue. Ensuring that people can travel by bus in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere in rural areas is important to that objective.

David Hanson: Has the ministerial team seen the comments by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) in which he called for the privatisation of motorways and a widespread increase in road tolling? Will Ministers rule out such proposals for the duration of this Parliament?

Philip Hammond: The coalition Government have indeed ruled out the tolling of the existing road network for the duration of this Parliament.

Tony Baldry: What are the Government going to do to make it safer for motorcyclists by improving the tests for motorcyclists? In particular, the last Government so reduced the number of test sites that we had the slightly ludicrous situation of motorcyclists who had not passed the test having to travel considerable distances on their motorbikes to take the test. So can we see some improvement in the test regime for motorcyclists?

Michael Penning: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We have announced a review into both parts of the motorcycle test, not only because of the concerns he raises, but because of some of the accidents that have taken place on tests, especially on part 1, which is off-road. We have a ludicrous situation in which some people have to travel two and a half miles with their L plates on to take the test, go off-road, fail it and then have to ride all the way back. That situation is being reviewed, and we hope to have answers in the autumn.

Graham Jones: Will the Minister let my constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), know what progress he has made on the Todmorden Curve rail project?

Theresa Villiers: I know that the local authorities are working hard on this project and have engaged Network Rail to do some important work on it. I very much appreciate the benefits that it could deliver, particularly when tied in with development proposals, if they go ahead. I am keeping a close eye on that. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I cannot give him guarantees on funding at the moment because of the state of the public finances. However, I know that the local authorities are taking this very seriously.

Christopher Pincher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although high speed rail services are important to our economy, many communities along the route, whichever may be chosen, will be adversely affected, including some communities in my own constituency? Will he therefore agree to mitigate, as far as he can, the impact on those communities, and will he also agree to-

Mr Speaker: Order. This is Topical Questions, so one question-short and sharp.

Philip Hammond: I think I can gather the balance of the question, Mr Speaker. We well understand that the national strategic and economic benefits of the high speed rail network have to be balanced against local environmental disbenefits. Of course, the project will be designed with maximum sensitivity in mind, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I will be visiting the line of the proposed route in the summer recess.

Alison McGovern: Last week, I spoke to residents in Heswall in my constituency who are most concerned to get the train to Liverpool rather than their cars. The Wrexham to Bidston electrification project is vital for that. Will the Minister explain briefly what work her officials in the Department are doing to work with Network Rail, Merseytravel and others to take this vital project forward?

Theresa Villiers: We are in touch with Network Rail and Merseytravel on this issue. Indeed, I discussed it with the director general of Merseytravel only recently. The hon. Lady will appreciate that this has been worked on by the Welsh Assembly Government, and I very much hope that progress can be made on it. However, she will appreciate that, as I said previously, the crisis in the public finances that we have inherited means that I cannot give guarantees on additional funding from central Government at the moment.

Charlie Elphicke: I see that the shipping Minister has been to Harwich and Felixstowe in the past week. I invite him to come and see the port of Dover, so that he can see at first hand how our plans can be the jewel in the crown of the big society and make Dover the jewel in the crown of the nation once again.

Michael Penning: That is a fantastic offer which, of course, I will accept.

Alison Seabeck: Will the Secretary of State respond to a letter that I received from a constituent of mine, Mr Rod East? He is 61 and has a concessionary bus pass. Plymouth city council will have to renew it in 2011 under the system it is operating. Will he please confirm his earlier statement that no changes to the concessionary bus pass will apply to Plymouth city council?

Philip Hammond: I can only repeat what I said earlier: we have no plans to change the national concessionary scheme. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have both made very clear their commitment to the national scheme.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the Government's commitment to high speed rail, particularly to encourage people to use rail instead of domestic air travel. Given the rising cost of rail compared with flying, what will the Secretary of State do to get the price mechanism right in order to get this shift from air to rail?

Philip Hammond: The High Speed 2 project will introduce a massive increase in capacity. These will be huge trains, with 1,100 seats each, and they will run at a very high frequency. Simple demand-and-supply economics should help to keep travel affordable. At the same time, after 2012, aviation will come within the European emissions trading scheme, and the carbon costs of aviation will start to be reflected in the cost of flying.

Katy Clark: Will the Minister rule out reclassifying Network Rail as a public company, which would be a Railtrack mark 2, and commit to a not-for-dividend organisation?

Theresa Villiers: We are looking at the options for reform of Network Rail. We believe that the status quo is not acceptable, because Network Rail is not accountable enough to its customers or the passengers whom they serve. As for its balance sheet status, we believe that this is a matter for national statisticians. We will make decisions on the future of Network Rail based on what is best for passengers and the taxpayer, and not-as the previous Government did-on the basis of tortuous calculations about whether things are on or off the balance sheet.

George Eustice: One of the projects currently under review in my area is the east-west link road in Camborne and Redruth, which is a crucial element of a broader regeneration project, led by the private sector, that would create 6,000 new jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree that when it comes to prioritising transport projects after the comprehensive spending review, one of the key criteria to apply will be the impact on enterprise and jobs?

Norman Baker: I fully understand the importance attached to that scheme in my hon. Friend's constituency. I can confirm to him that the impact on the economy and job creation will be a factor taken into account in deciding whether to proceed with the scheme, along with the public finances and the opportunity to reduce carbon emissions.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked-

People Trafficking

Peter Bone: If she will discuss with the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposals for border controls to identify young women entering the UK from European Economic Area countries who may have been trafficked.

Theresa May: I welcome my hon. Friend's tireless work in this field. Let me also do something that I tried to do a little prematurely on a previous occasion, which is to congratulate him properly on his election as joint chair of the all-party group on human trafficking. Tackling human trafficking is a coalition priority, and the Government are currently considering how to improve our response to this terrible crime, including through the creation of a border police force. I would be happy to ensure that border controls and the protection of vulnerable groups are covered in our consultation.

Peter Bone: Could the Minister for Women have a conversation with the excellent Home Secretary about citizens coming from the European economic area who bring in children who are not of the same name as themselves? They are waved through at the moment. Could they not be separately interviewed, to ensure that they are coming in for a proper purpose and are not being trafficked?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point, although I have to say that if I start speaking to myself, people might get the wrong idea. The separate interview is done in relation to non-EEA nationals, based on a risk assessment undertaken by UK Border Agency officials, and is something that has been important. We can and do interview EEA nationals. Obviously trafficking is covert, and it is often tricky to detect. Our border controls must be part of a much wider approach on the issue, but I am certainly happy to take away the suggestion that my hon. Friend has made and have a look at it.

Fiona Mactaggart: But is it not critical to reduce the demand for sexually exploited trafficked women, which is how the organised crime behind trafficking makes a profit? What is the Minister doing to reduce the demand for the sexual exploitation of women?

Theresa May: I recognise that the hon. Lady has had a long-standing interest in the issue, and has fought and campaigned hard on it for some time. As she will know, her Government introduced a new offence of paying for sex with somebody who had been exploited or forced into that position, which is intended to deter men from paying for sex with those who have been exploited, a category into which those who have been trafficked would obviously fall. We are currently waiting to see how that offence plays out, in terms of its impact.

Budget Implications

Nia Griffith: Whether an equality impact assessment has been undertaken on the proposals in the June 2010 Budget.

Rachel Reeves: What assessment the Government Equalities Office has undertaken of the relative effects of the June 2010 Budget on men and on women.

Theresa May: We have had to take tough decisions to reduce the deficit and secure the economic recovery essential to maintaining the living standards of women and families in this country in the longer term. The June Budget does that fairly, with a focus on protecting the most vulnerable in society, including low-income families. Assessing policy options in the light of tough financial constraints is not a one-off but an ongoing process. My officials are working with and talking to Departments about how to take account of equality considerations as they develop and implement the policies that will achieve budget reductions-budget reductions made necessary, I would remind the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), by Labour's mismanagement of the economy.

Nia Griffith: I find that answer quite surprising, given that three quarters of the burden of the emergency Budget introduced by the right hon. Lady's Government will fall on women. Will she explain in detail what assessment she has made of the impact of the Budget, and what representations she has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mitigate its effects?

Theresa May: I think that the hon. Lady is referring to some research that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has undertaken. That research is partial in its assessment, because it fails to take into account a whole host of issues in the Budget, including the council tax freeze. The hon. Lady should also recognise the steps that we took in the Budget to protect people on low incomes. They include the exemption from the public sector workers' freeze-lower-paid public sector workers are predominantly women, and they will be exempt from that pay freeze. We are also working to freeze the basic rate of income tax, to increase the personal allowance, and to remove 880,000 people from income tax altogether, the majority of whom will be women. We are very conscious of the need to look at the impact of the Budget, but I suggest that the hon. Lady needs to look at the good things in it that will help people on low incomes.

Rachel Reeves: Mums, children, and women in retirement will contribute twice as much to bringing down the Budget deficit as the predominantly suited men in the square mile will pay through the banking levy. Given that the Government are so keen to stress their family-friendly credentials, does the right hon. Lady feel that that balance is fair?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady referred to people in retirement; I would simply remind her that it is this Government who are going to restore the earnings link for pensions. Her Government had 13 years in which to do that, but they failed to do it.

Esther McVey: The latest figures for business start-ups estimate that men start up 150,000 more businesses than women. If the same number of women as men were setting up businesses, £7 billion would be added to the economy. What is my right hon. Friend going to do to help women set up in business?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point. She herself has an excellent record of supporting women in business, through the women's networks that she has started. We are looking at how we can ensure that women's entrepreneurship is encouraged, but the figures that she cited are absolutely right, and we need to ensure not only that that contribution to the economy is made but that we are not wasting the talent out there that could be put to good use for society and for the economy as a whole.

Anne McIntosh: Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention, in any work that she does in this regard, to women who are returning to work after bringing up a family, as they are in the greatest need of extra training?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, and we shall certainly look into it. Before the election, we had specific proposals that were geared towards helping women who were returning to work, to ensure that they were given the necessary skills to resume their place in the work force.

Maria Eagle: Mr Speaker, I am deputising for my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who has informed you and the Secretary of State that she cannot be here today for family reasons to do with her children.
	Given that 75 per cent. of the burden of the Budget will be borne by women, will the right hon. Lady tell me what is the point of her role as Minister for Women and Equalities in this very male-dominated Government if she cannot even ensure that men and women bear the burden of the Government's deficit reduction measures equally? When she answers that question, will she clarify whether she is speaking in a personal capacity or whether she, at least, understands the constitutional concept of collective responsibility, even if the Deputy Prime Minister does not?

Theresa May: The figure that the hon. Lady has cited is not an official statistic; it is a figure that was derived from a piece of work that excluded analysis of significant parts of the Budget. That is why it is not a figure that I am going to recognise. Furthermore, if we had not taken those decisions in the Budget to deal with the deficit, and if we had adopted Labour's plans to deal with it, that would have hit women even harder than our proposals. Under Labour's proposals, expenditure on debt interest would have been higher than the expenditure on crucial public services, which are of particular importance to women.

Civil Service Recruitment

Eric Ollerenshaw: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on increasing recruitment to the civil service from black, Asian and other minority ethnic people.

Lynne Featherstone: Black, Asian and other minority ethnic representation in the civil service has been increasing steadily, and is broadly representative of the economically active population. We are committed to attracting the best talent from the widest possible pool of candidates. They have been targeted, and successful efforts have been made to render the civil service and the fast stream more diverse. My Cabinet Office colleagues are examining the range of BAME internships run by the Departments, and I expect to have discussions with them on the matter in due course.

Eric Ollerenshaw: We all welcome the Government's announced policy on internships for under-represented minorities. How much progress has been made on that vital policy so far?

Lynne Featherstone: It is nice that my hon. Friend and I are together again after our time on the Greater London assembly, along with many Opposition Members.
	The work relating to our commitment is still at an early stage. It is important for us to build on existing programmes. Some Whitehall Departments already run internships in the summer development programme. The Cabinet Office is examining current practice and future options, and I look forward to working with it in due course to ensure that the practice is extended to all Departments.

Katy Clark: This year's Budget cut the budget of the Equality and Human Rights Commission by 15%, and further cuts are expected. Does the Minister believe that the commission will be able to continue to carry out its statutory duties, and can she tell us what impact the cut will have on the initiatives to which she has referred?

Lynne Featherstone: There have been cuts in all budgets. The EHRC will probably concentrate on its core functions, and I expect its budget to be sufficient to enable it to deliver the equality that we all require from it.

Flexible Working

Sarah Newton: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on proposals to extend flexible working arrangements in the public sector.

Lynne Featherstone: I have had several discussions with colleagues on how we can implement our commitment to extending the right to request flexible working to all. That, of course, includes those in the public sector, which has a long and successful track record in this regard. In my Department, for example, 57% of staff work flexibly, and all vacancies are advertised as being available on a flexible basis. We will seek to share that and other good practice in the public sector more widely.

Sarah Newton: Flexible working enabled me to balance caring for my husband and children with working. Without that opportunity, I probably would not be standing here today. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's plan to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees is the most progressive measure to encourage a culture of flexible working that any Government have yet been able to promise?

Lynne Featherstone: Hear, hear. I am glad to learn that flexible working has been an enabler in my hon. Friend's life, as it will be in so many other lives. Flexible working and the right to extend it to all will enable businesses to draw on all the skills and talents in the country, and on a wider pool of skill. It will improve recruitment and retention rates and increase staff morale and productivity, and we will all gain from that.

Parental Leave

Julian Smith: What progress the Government have made on the provision of a system of flexible parental leave.

Theresa May: I welcome my hon. Friend's continuing interest in this issue. The Government are committed to implementing the coalition agreement pledge to promote a system of flexible parental leave. We are working closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which intends to present proposals later in the year.

Julian Smith: Small businesses in my constituency and throughout the country are concerned about the coalition's plans to change the parental leave system. However, British Chambers of Commerce has indicated to me that it would be less concerned if the Government guaranteed that this would be the only change to parental leave legislation in the current Parliament. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether she plans to introduce the additional paternity leave regulations that are due next year?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of small businesses. We all recognise the problems that many of them have experienced in this respect. I continue to believe that flexible working and flexible parental leave will be of benefit overall and will benefit many small businesses, a number of which already operate flexibly. However, we are looking into how we can avoid constantly requiring businesses to effect innovations, and we are examining the timetabling of the additional paternity leave and flexible parental leave regulations.

Sexual Equality

Simon Kirby: What recent discussions she has had with her international counterparts on international standards for the treatment of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Lynne Featherstone: Last month we published "Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality", which included a commitment to use our international influence to encourage other countries to advance LGBT equality. I am committed to using meetings with international counterparts and any other levers open to us to tear down the barriers that still exist for LGBT people throughout Europe and around the world.

Simon Kirby: Will the Government use their influence to support the UN statement that calls on states to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstance be used for discrimination or criminal proceedings?

Lynne Featherstone: This is such an important area in which we can use our influence and we will encourage more countries to support the UN statement on the decriminalisation of LGBT issues. We will robustly examine the human rights records of other UN member states as well.

Business of the House

Rosie Winterton: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

George Young: The business for the week beginning 26 July will include:
	Monday 26 July-Conclusion of proceedings on the Academies Bill [ Lords] (Day 3).
	Tuesday 27 July-The Backbench Business Committee has chosen the usual format for business in which a Member can raise any issue.
	The House will not adjourn until the Speaker has signified Royal Assent. Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 11.30 am on Tuesday 27 July.
	The business for the week commencing 6 September will include:
	Monday 6 September-Second Reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
	Tuesday 7 September-Second Reading of the Superannuation Bill.
	Wednesday 8 September-Opposition day [4th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 9 September-The House will consider a motion relating to UK armed forces in Afghanistan. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 13 September will include:
	Monday 13 September-Second Reading of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill.
	Tuesday 14 September-Second Reading of the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill.
	Wednesday 15 September-Motion to approve Ways and Means resolutions on which a Finance Bill will be introduced, followed by remaining stages of the Identity Documents Bill.
	Thursday 16 September-General debate on the future of the UK's armed forces. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 9 September will be:
	Thursday 9 September-A debate on future controls on legal highs.
	As this is the last business questions before the summer recess, may I as usual thank the staff of the House for their hard work since the beginning of this Parliament, not least on the induction programme for new Members? I hope that the staff have a good break before we return in September.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement, which I assume is the actual business of the House as opposed to his personal view of what it ought to be. I also add my thanks to the staff of the House for all their hard work supporting us over the past 10 weeks.
	As the Leader of the House said, on Monday next week we will debate the concluding stages of the Academies Bill. Against the fiasco of the abolition of over 700 Building Schools for the Future projects, the Bill has been rushed through its Commons stages. On Monday this week, the House debated the Bill on Second Reading, and the Committee stage began yesterday. That meant that Members had just over an hour after the debate had finished to consider the speeches made during it and to table amendments. Such timetabling of debate raises serious questions over the validity of the Bill, which has not been given sufficient time for scrutiny.
	Mr Speaker, the Opposition Chief Whip and I have written to you about this, but I want also to urge the Leader of the House to look at this matter seriously to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny and proceedings are safeguarded.
	Will the Leader of the House ensure that when the Deputy Prime Minister answers questions next Tuesday he tells us where he got the idea that the directors of Sheffield Forgemasters were refusing to dilute their shareholding and that that was a reason not to give them the loan? We now know that on 25 May a letter was sent to the Government by a major Tory donor, Andrew Cook, who started his letter:
	"I am the largest donor to the Conservative party in Yorkshire and have been since David Cameron was elected leader."
	Indeed, he had given half a million pounds to the Conservative party and had provided flights worth £54,000 to the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. The letter stated that Sheffield Forgemasters management were refusing to dilute their shareholding by accepting outside equity investment. On 21 June the Prime Minister said in terms that the directors of the company were refusing to dilute their shareholding. On 22 June the Deputy Prime Minister repeated the allegation in the House.

Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will not take points of order at this stage. I feel sure that the right hon. Lady is nearing the conclusion of her remarks.

Rosie Winterton: We on the Opposition Benches knew all along that that allegation was not true, because it was a condition of the loan that the company look for additional outside investment. That point has now been admitted by the Deputy Prime Minister in his letter to the company of 2 July, but he still has not set the record straight in Parliament. The ministerial code says:
	"It is of paramount importance that ministers should give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
	Will the Leader of the House ensure that either the Deputy Prime Minister at his questions next week or the Business Secretary in a statement will tell us the following: first, whether the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) told the Business Secretary that he had given the letter of 25 May from the Tory donor to officials; secondly, whether either the Secretary of State or the Minister of State- [Interruption.]-informed the permanent secretary that officials had been given the letter; and, thirdly, whether the Prime Minister was aware of the Andrew Cook letter and its allegations and whether the Deputy Prime Minister was aware of the letter when he repeated the allegations?
	Parliament needs answers to these questions, and we need them before we rise for the summer recess. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we get them, and if he cannot get them, will he ensure that a proper inquiry is held into this matter?

George Young: The first issue was the time that we have allowed for the Academies Bill, and I am surprised that the right hon. Lady has raised that today. Last Thursday I announced the business for this week. On the Order Paper was the Academies Bill programme motion, yet she did not mention that even once in the many issues she raised with me last week. If she thinks today that the programme motion was an outrage it seems slightly strange that she failed to say so last Thursday when she had ample opportunity to talk about this week's business.
	On the second point about Sheffield Forgemasters, I-and many other Members-spent from 10.45 to 11.15 last night listening to the Adjournment debate during which all the issues that the right hon. Lady has raised were dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who made it absolutely clear that the issue has always been commercial affordability. He took numerous interventions from Opposition Members, and he dealt wholly adequately with the subject, and I am surprised that the right hon. Lady has raised it again.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. More than 30 hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and I would like to accommodate as many as possible, but we have a further statement to follow and heavy pressure on time. What is required is brevity, a textbook example of which will be provided by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).

Andrew Rosindell: Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the Secretary of State for International Development on his announcement today that the pause on the development of the airport in St Helena will be lifted and that an airport will be built, thus securing the economic future of that British overseas territory and best value for the British taxpayer? Does he agree that an annual debate on British overseas territories would be of great benefit?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He refers to the written ministerial statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announcing his "provisional conclusion" that an airport is indeed the right solution for St Helena, that the short-term cost is more than "outweighed" by the long-term benefit and that it will promote inward investment and the development of the tourist industry. I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who chairs the all-party group on St Helena. They have consistently advocated that sort of solution.

Lyn Brown: Newham is to have an estimated 1,300 fewer secondary school places, due in part to the loss of 14 Building Schools for the Future projects. I attended yesterday's Westminster Hall debate to request that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) meet me to discuss the impact of that. Sadly, despite my numerous attempts, he refused to take my intervention. May I ask that we have a debate on this important issue on the Floor of this House? We need an opportunity not only to discuss the impact of that programme, but for the Minister to be more gracious.

George Young: As the hon. Lady said, we have just had a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on the Building Schools for the Future programme. I will convey her particular request for a meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I know that, as a rule, he is more than happy to meet hon. Members from both sides of the House, and I am sure that he will readily agree, particularly when he reads  Hansard tomorrow morning, that a meeting with the hon. Lady would be appropriate.

Robert Smith: The Leader of the House will know how important the post office network is to many of our constituents, particularly those receiving benefits. The Department for Work and Pensions has put out for tender on the cheques received by those who cannot cope with the card account. Will he ensure that we get a statement before the recess from the DWP on the access criteria it will use in judging that, so that those people can still use the post office network to access their benefits?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I will contact the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to see whether my hon. Friend and the House can be given the relevant information before we rise on Tuesday.

Clive Efford: The duty of the Leader of the House is to protect the interests of the House. When we have asked questions of Ministers at the Dispatch Box we have been labouring under the misapprehension that they have actually been speaking on behalf of the Government. Yesterday, we heard the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister which, it was later said, was a personal statement or a statement of Liberal Democrat policy. Will the Leader of the House make a statement about how we are to determine who is answering questions on behalf of whom on the Government Benches? While doing that, will he consider the suggestion that there should be a dress code for the Liberal Democrats? They should wear blue down one side and yellow down the other, so that when they turn the yellow side towards the Dispatch Box we know who is talking and when they turn their blue side towards it we know that they are speaking for the Tory Government. What we need to know is what-

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point very forcefully.

George Young: I will not comment on the suggestion of a dress code for Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament. Ministers are accountable at this Dispatch Box for the work of their Departments, but it is not unknown for Ministers to make personal statements from this Dispatch Box. I have listened to many debates, on abortion and on other issues, where Ministers have made it clear when they are speaking about and representing their own views. I have made my own views known on many issues from this Dispatch Box, so it is not unprecedented -[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We must have a bit of order. I want to the hear the reply from the Leader of the House. I am enjoying it.

George Young: It is not unprecedented for Ministers speaking at this Dispatch Box occasionally to make their personal views known.

Robert Halfon: For a long time, Harlow has had a major problem with rail fatalities, with eight in 2008 and one only last Thursday morning. Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on rail safety and consider establishing a system of special rail guards, similar to special constables, with volunteers from the local community?

George Young: We have just had Transport questions, and I do not know whether my hon. Friend was able to ask that question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. One rail fatality is one fatality too many and I shall certainly raise with the Secretary of State for Transport the proposition that my hon. Friend has just put to the House.

Dave Watts: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), it is clear that at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was answering in a personal capacity. That denied the House of Commons the ability to hold the Government to account. May we have an extra PMQs in September so that we can try to get some accountability from the Government?

George Young: The Deputy Prime Minister's views on the war in Iraq are well known and should have come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman.

Edward Timpson: One debate that would be welcomed by many of my constituents would be on Britain's throwaway culture and the explosion in the cost of clearing up litter in this country to the tune of more than £850 million a year-a statistic made even worse by the mess left by the previous Government.

George Young: I commend the work that Bill Bryson and the Campaign to Protect Rural England are doing to prevent the additional costs on local authorities of picking up litter. I commend the Stop the Drop campaign that they are promoting at the moment. I hope that all citizens will take their responsibilities seriously and avoid putting extra pressure on local authorities by increasing the sums that they have to spend on clearing up litter.

Dennis Skinner: So, now that we can assume that personal statements can be made as opposed to other statements, was the junior Minister who answered on Forgemasters last night making a personal statement, a statement on behalf of the Business Secretary, or a statement on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister? What we want are personal statements from the last two to tell the truth about the letters and the whole issue. Get them there at the Dispatch Box and stop this silly nonsense about personal statements.

George Young: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had time to look at  Hansard for the debate on Sheffield-

Dennis Skinner: I was here.

George Young: I was here, too-

Dennis Skinner: Intermittently.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not chunter like that from a sedentary position. Let us hear the answer from the Leader of the House.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman may not have seen me, because I was sitting where the Dispatch Box might have obscured his view. He will have seen in column 532 that my hon. Friend the Minister referred to "the Government's decision".

Angie Bray: Many of us would have been pleased to see the action of the bailiffs to clear the so-called village from Parliament square, but slightly dismayed to find the remnants still parked on the pavement. Does the Leader of the House agree that some time should be made available to debate robust measures to clear up the mess once and for all, so that the square is open for all to enjoy and for legitimate protest?

George Young: I commend the action that the Mayor of London has taken, supported by the courts, to enable the green to be cleared and, I hope, restored, so that it is a visual amenity and not an eyesore. Clearly there is work still to be done because the pavement is obstructed, and that is a matter for Westminster city council. I understand that a meeting took place recently between Westminster city council and the House authorities to discuss options for dealing with the encampments, but we are also considering amending the current legal framework governing protests around Parliament square and seeing how local byelaws might be strengthened.

Barry Sheerman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of how much the prosperity of our regional towns and cities depends on the universities of those towns and cities? Is he aware that many vice-chancellors believe that they will have to cut thousands of teaching jobs and thousands of research jobs if this needless 25% cut goes right across the university sector?

George Young: I think that that would carry more weight if the hon. Gentleman explained to the House how the deficit that he left us might be addressed. Despite the horrendous deficit that we inherited, there are 10,000 more university places than there were last year and that is a tribute to our commitment to higher education.

Kris Hopkins: Following the damaging comments and testimony of the former head of British intelligence about the Iraq war and the activities of the former Prime Minister, can we have an urgent debate on the representation of, and the confidence of the House in, the present middle east peace envoy?

George Young: If my hon. Friend is referring to the Chilcot inquiry, I think it would make sense to await the outcome of that before the House holds a debate on the issue that he has outlined.

Meg Munn: I welcome the Department for International Development's statement on the development of St Helena airport, as I have long argued that that makes sense in terms of value for money. Can we have a debate so that we can hear from DFID about the process that it went through to determine that making that investment now will save money in the long term? The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills might learn something from that in relation to issues such as Forgemasters.

George Young: I commend the ingenuity of the hon. Lady's question. She will have seen the written ministerial statement setting out the reasons behind the provisional conclusion, which concerned whether an acceptable contract price was achieved and whether the risk of cost and time overruns were addressed. That is the right way to go and it represents the best value for money for the British taxpayer. Of course, that conclusion could not have been reached without the assent of the Treasury.

Mark Pritchard: Notwithstanding the excellent efforts of the Combined Maritime Forces, the NATO naval force and EU NAVFOR-the European Union naval force Somalia-thousands of people remain captive in Somalia and the horn of Africa. Is it not time to have a review of and an urgent debate on the Government's counter-piracy policy, which affects British interests?

George Young: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He could raise that issue in Tuesday's debate on the summer Adjournment. Now that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House knows that it might be raised, he will come equipped with a suitable reply.

Albert Owen: Can we have a debate on the Irish economic crisis? Given that the centre-right coalition Government there introduced an emergency budget that has led to high unemployment, cuts in services and the loss of Ireland's credit rating, such a debate would enable this centre-right coalition Government here to learn lessons.

George Young: The last time I looked at the opinion polls, the view in this country of what the centre-right coalition, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, is doing was rather favourable.

Alan Reid: I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) about benefit cheques. If that contract is taken away from the Post Office, people on several of the islands and in many rural parts of my constituency will have nowhere to cash their cheques. Many of the people who receive those cheques are among the most vulnerable in society and they will not get the same help and advice in outlets such as petrol stations as they would in a post office. I hope that we will have an urgent statement on that next week.

George Young: I think that all hon. Members will share my hon. Friend's view about the importance of the Post Office network maintaining its viability and the implications for its viability if the scenario that he outlines takes place. I shall certainly reinforce the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and I shall see that information is given to the House-if possible before we rise-on progress on the contract he mentions.

Thomas Docherty: Thousands of Christmas Island nuclear testing veterans have waited many years for compensation. My understanding is that the Ministry of Defence has now accepted that there is a direct link between that testing in the 1950s and the cancers from which those people are now suffering. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House in September and update us regarding the compensation package?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. There will be questions to the appropriate Department on 13 September and I suggest that he seek to table a question for then, as that might be a suitable forum in which to raise the issue further.

Julian Lewis: This is my blue and, I hope, red side. May we have a statement as soon as possible on the courtesies that need not and should not be extended to leading members of the British National party, even if they have been elected under an appalling system of proportional representation? That would enable those of us who do not wish to rub shoulders with neo-Nazis at Buckingham palace garden parties to return our tickets even at the last minute.

George Young: My hon. Friend invites me to tread on delicate territory. The best response that I can give is that the responsibility for invitations to the garden party at Buckingham palace rest not with me but a higher authority.

Paul Flynn: When can we debate early-day motion 560 to praise the BBC for its unrivalled and fearless independence on the "Today" programme and to frustrate the plans of the coalition nomenclatura to shoot the messenger?
	 [That this House congratulates John Humphrys for his forensic questioning of the Foreign Secretary on NATO's strategy in Afghanistan, which added to the BBC's unrivalled reputation for fearless independent  journalism .]

George Young: I am not aware of any plans in the coalition to curtail the editorial independence of the BBC. I pay tribute to the "Today" programme, which I listen to every morning.

Jo Swinson: Can we have a debate on the civil service compensation scheme? Although there is much agreement across the House and, indeed, among most unions on the need for reform, there remains a great deal of concern out there and it would be helpful if the House had an opportunity to discuss this issue with a Minister, particularly to underscore the importance of meaningful consultation between the unions and the Government.

George Young: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to debate that issue, because I have announced the Second Reading of the Superannuation Bill for when we come back in September. The Administration are carrying forward the policy of the previous Administration in reducing the compensation available to civil servants who are made redundant.

Jim Sheridan: Could we have a debate on the industrial relations problems in the aviation industry, particularly with British Airways? Without any recommendation from the leadership of the Unite union, BA cabin crew have now voted for a fourth time to take industrial action, which suggests that there is a serious industrial relations problem in that once proud and well-respected company. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to get both parties together and try to get this industrial relations problem sorted out?

George Young: I very much hope that there will not be any more industrial action on the part of British Airways, as that is not in the interests of either its employees or the travelling public. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is keeping an eagle eye on those discussions, but it is primarily a matter for negotiations between the employers and employees. I am not convinced at this stage that it would be right for the Government to intervene.

Jake Berry: I am sure that many hon. Members will have noticed that the Members' dining rooms are frequented by mice. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on whether a tough Lancastrian cat could be obtained from Bleakholt animal sanctuary in Rossendale to repel those rodent invaders?

George Young: It is indeed the case that mice are seen on the parliamentary estate. I have actually seen an hon. Member feeding them out of kindness. I will pursue with the parliamentary authorities my hon. Friend's generous offer of a cat, but there might be even more cost-effective ways of dealing with the mice than a Lancastrian cat.

Helen Jones: Will the Leader of the House ensure that a Defence Minister comes to the House to make a statement on what steps are being taken to protect serving and former personnel from the risk of prosecution following the Deputy Prime Minister's statement at the Dispatch Box? What steps can the House take to ensure that men and women who are doing their duty for the country are not put at risk by such statements?

George Young: I repeat what I said a few moments ago. It makes sense to await the outcome of the Chilcot inquiry before venturing into the debate on whether the war in Iraq was legal.

James Clappison: In view of the sudden outburst of indignation about the programming of motions, will the Leader of the House remind us when the routine programming of Bills was introduced?

George Young: The programme motion for the Academies Bill was tabled a week ago. I must say that I looked in at the opening of yesterday's debate at six minutes past 2 and there were three Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber.

Kevin Brennan: We need a statement on Forgemasters before the recess, because we need to know-perhaps the Leader of the House can give us the answers-whether the Prime Minister was aware of the letter sent by Andrew Cook. Were Liberal Democrat Ministers aware of it, or were they kept in the dark?

George Young: I am amazed that Opposition Members continue to flog this dead horse. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, explained in the debate yesterday what he did with the letter from Andrew Cook.

Therese Coffey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the crisis faced by many fishermen and women up and down our coast, and particularly in Suffolk Coastal? I absolutely commend the efforts of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), and of my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous), but may I press for an urgent debate on fisheries management in our country, and perhaps the repatriation of powers from the common fisheries policy?

George Young: My hon. Friend raises an issue of great importance to her constituents. May I suggest to her what I suggested to an hon. Friend earlier-that on Tuesday, she raises that important issue in the debate on the summer Adjournment? Again, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will come equipped with a reply.

Bill Esterson: Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on the Thornton relief road in my constituency? It was first mooted in 1934, and would not only boost the construction industry but provide much needed support for businesses and residents who face congestion every day in Thornton.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman asks for a debate in Government time, but I think that the issue would be best addressed in an Adjournment debate, and I suggest that he applies to Mr Speaker for one.

Graham Stuart: The last Administration used complex formulae for funding allocation to cheat rural areas of their fair share of support for education, health and other public services. They hid behind those formulae. May we have an urgent debate on the assessment of need in, and the allocation of funding to, rural areas, to ensure that they get a fair, not a skewed, share of national resources, having been so denuded by the Labour party?

George Young: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He will have seen in our proposals on health funding that in future, health resources will be distributed not by Ministers, but by an independent body. I hope that he applauds the pupil premium initiative, which will address some of the deprivation issues in rural constituencies.

Angela Smith: Andrew Cook issued a statement this morning to the effect that he has offered funding to Sheffield Forgemasters. May we have an urgent debate on whether Government officials were involved in encouraging or negotiating any deal between Andrew Cook and Sheffield Forgemasters, in what seems like a takeover bid for the company?

George Young: I am not sure what responsibility Government Ministers would have for an offer to Sheffield Forgemasters from Mr Cook, but if the hon. Lady would like to table the relevant question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I am sure that she will get an answer to her question.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Leader of the House will be aware that there was a meeting earlier this week of a number of people to whom Barclays allegedly mis-sold the Morley-now Aviva-global balanced or cautious fund, which then turned out to be adventurous. Will there be an opportunity in the near future for a debate in Government time on the mis-selling of financial products?

George Young: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue. Perhaps he would initially like to raise it on Tuesday in the summer Adjournment debate, before perhaps having a Westminster Hall debate of greater length on the subject.

Phil Woolas: On the Order Paper this morning, notice was given of 28 written ministerial statements. By 11.15 this morning, only 15 of them were available. Will the Leader of the House instruct his private secretary to write to Ministers, reminding them that written ministerial statements should be made available to the House at the earliest opportunity? At 11.25, the statement on e-borders was made available to the Library. From it, we learn that the electronic borders system, which is responsible for keeping our borders safe, is to have its contract with the supplier finished. Does that leave our borders vulnerable, and may we have a debate on the subject?

George Young: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate. On written ministerial statements, I hope that he will applaud the fact that today, some time before the House adjourns for the recess, we have got out 28 written ministerial statements, whereas in the old days, under Labour, they all came out on the last day before the recess. Of course, we will seek to make those statements available to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Andrew Percy: Last Friday, I visited an engineering firm in my constituency that, despite the recession, has refused to lay off any of its workers. It now has problems trying to access funding from its bank, which is trying to reduce the firm's overdraft, despite the fact that the firm has £500,000 of orders on its books. May we have an urgent debate on how we can robustly encourage the banks that we own to lend to business?

George Young: Indeed. My hon. Friend reminds the House that part of the contract in supporting the banks was that they should increase the amount of lending. I will see what we can do to find an opportunity to debate the matter. Perhaps that is something on which the Backbench Business Committee would like to reflect.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the great privilege of being at the Government Dispatch Box is that one speaks for the Government-and the great constraint is that one speaks for the Government. How can he assure the House that, at the Government Dispatch Box, with the dignity that it affords to an individual who steps up to it, individuals do not, perhaps inadvertently, mislead the House into thinking that they speak for the Government, when actually they are speaking just for themselves? Speaking at it is a privilege, and it needs to be taken as such.

George Young: As I said in response to an earlier question, the views of the Deputy Prime Minister on the Iraq war are well known and should have come as no surprise at all to any Member of the House. Nor is it unusual for Ministers speaking from the Dispatch Box occasionally to let their personal views into the public domain.

Peter Bone: Just for clarification, my yellow tie should not be taken to mean anything of significance.
	Will the Leader of the House explain who will be in charge of the country, and acting Prime Minister, when the Prime Minister goes on his well-earned holidays or if he is incapacitated? Would it be the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor or, in fact, the Leader of the House?

George Young: I am sure that it would not be the Leader of the House. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a Deputy Prime Minister, and that title makes his responsibilities clear. However, I see- [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is unfair of Members to heckle in this noisy, disruptive fashion. I am enjoying the Leader of the House's responses and I want to hear them.

George Young: I see no prospect whatever in the near future of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister becoming incapacitated.

Joan Walley: In view of all the written ministerial statements today, does the Leader of the House share my concern that the statement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should have been a statement to the House? We could then have discussed the long-term implications of the abolition of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the withdrawal of funds from the Sustainable Development Commission-matters that are vital. I am pleased that the Environmental Audit Committee will have a role in reviewing all that, but we need those resources. As there are implications for the devolved Administrations, we need an overarching policy on green issues. When can we have a debate on the subject in the House?

George Young: On the hon. Lady's first point, she wanted a statement to the House, but she has one. She wanted an oral statement. She will know that today we are debating the Academies Bill, and we already have one oral statement on Equitable Life. The more oral statements that the Government provide, the less time there is to debate important issues. However, I will see that the substantive issue that she mentioned is raised with the appropriate Minister, and that she gets a response.

Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the House that when the Chilcot inquiry issues its report, there will be a full day's debate on it? Those of us who voted against the Iraq war did so because we always believed it to be contrary to international law and illegal. The only reasonable inference that one can draw from all the evidence that has emerged is that Blair took Britain to war on the basis of a lie.

George Young: My hon. Friend makes a powerful plea for a debate on the Chilcot inquiry. When the report is published, it would be appropriate to have a debate on it, in which hon. Members who took a different view from him at the time could share their views, and in which the House could debate the matter in a proper manner.

Kelvin Hopkins: This week, there have been reports of potentially scandalous financial dealings at the top of Network Rail, just as Iain Coucher is leaving the organisation. The Transport Salaried Staffs Association has forwarded to the Government, on behalf of management staff in Network Rail, a report asking for a thorough investigation of those dealings by the appropriate authorities. Will the Leader of the House make sure that the Government arrange for those investigations to be undertaken, and that we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the issue?

George Young: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity earlier this morning to raise that issue with the Secretary of State for Transport. Any allegations about anything illegal should, of course, be pursued by the police; I am sure that they will take note of the point that he has made. I will share the broader issues that he has raised about the responsibilities of Network Rail with the Secretary of State for Transport.

Julian Smith: Hill farmers in Skipton and Ripon and across England are facing a bureaucratic nightmare as a result of the transition from the hill farm allowance to the uplands entry level scheme. Will my right hon. Friend advise me about the best route to represent their interests at this critical time?

Mr Speaker: That was a request for a debate, I am sure.

George Young: There will be Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 9 September and an opportunity next Tuesday for my hon. Friend to share his concerns with the House.

Kate Green: Yesterday in my constituency, we learned that a number of Playbuilder schemes in children's parks are to be cancelled. We are not sure whether that is because the funding has been removed entirely or whether it is merely because of the removal of ring-fencing. Will the Leader of the House encourage ministerial colleagues who make statements about financial plans to ensure that the House is fully informed about those plans' impact on children, who are most deserving of our protection?

George Young: It is important that local authorities should know in advance what their budgets are likely to be. However, how they spend their budgets and balance their responsibilities for children with other responsibilities is essentially a matter for local government rather than central Government.

Diana Johnson: The Leader of the House has announced the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, two important constitutional Bills that will be debated in September. Will he explain why there will be no pre-legislative scrutiny of those important constitutional Bills?

George Young: It is our intention for there to be pre-legislative scrutiny where appropriate, but the hon. Lady will understand that in the first term of a new Parliament with a new Government, it is not possible for all the legislative proposals to be put into pre-legislative scrutiny. There will be draft Bills on House of Lords reform, which is a constitutional measure, and on privileges, but if we want to make progress and improve the constitution of this country, there cannot be draft Bills on everything.

Gareth Thomas: During last week's business questions, the Leader of the House agreed to seek a statement from Foreign Office colleagues about the health of democracy in the Maldives. I do not believe that such a statement has yet been forthcoming. Given that the Foreign Office has issued a travel warning for British tourists to the Maldives, that opposition MPs there are still being detained and that the Chief Justice has been intimidated, will the right hon. Gentleman redouble his efforts to secure such a statement?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue again. As he will know, this country, the UN, the US and EU heads of mission have issued a public statement urging the political parties of the Maldives to engage in a constructive and open dialogue, to address the challenges to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We have stressed to the Government of the Maldives the importance of upholding the rule of law and we remain a strong supporter of the democratic reform process in the Maldives.

Jonathan Edwards: The Leader of the House will be aware of the body of scientific evidence indicating that military low-flying activity can have serious implications for the health of the subjected population. Will he allow Government time to debate the continued need for low-flying military tactical training areas-in particular the Welsh MTTA, which covers the north of my constituency? The practice has been banned in other states such as Germany.

George Young: There are also low-flying aircraft in my constituency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that our pilots need at times to fly low as part of their training. However, I will raise his concerns with colleagues at the Ministry of Defence to see whether there is any way in which we can address the problems that he has described.

Derek Twigg: The announcement of a timetable on Afghanistan is plainly wrong and will be welcomed by the Taliban. We have heard two different withdrawal dates and that withdrawal will depend on conditions. May we have a statement so that we can better understand the Government's policy? It is important that we get the matter right on behalf of our armed forces.

George Young: There was a statement on the matter yesterday. Furthermore, I have announced a debate on Afghanistan in the first week back, at the initiative of the Backbench Business Committee. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity after the recess to raise the concerns that he has outlined.

Wayne David: In the light of the comments made by the Leader of the House today, might it not be appropriate to have a debate on whether the title of Deputy Prime Minister should be changed to "Deputy Prime Minister in a Personal Capacity"?

Mr Speaker: I call the Leader of the House.  [Interruption.] The Leader of the House.

George Young: I was wondering whether that merited a response, Mr Speaker. I have decided that it does not.

Phil Wilson: Last year, One NorthEast attracted £750 million-worth of inward investment into the region. In fact, 82% of inward investment into the north-east comes through that regional development agency. May we have a debate to expose the fact that abolishing the RDA is an act of economic vandalism?

George Young: If they want, local authorities can replace RDAs with local enterprise boards. If the hon. Gentleman's local authorities believe in the value of regional development agencies, they are perfectly at liberty to recreate one as an LEB.

Fiona Mactaggart: May we have an urgent debate on the right of Back-Bench Members to hold the Government to account? On 15 July, a Communities and Local Government Minister said that no local authority had faced cuts larger than 2%. That statement has not since been corrected, although it is not true. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the war in Iraq was illegal-apparently in a personal capacity, although without informing the House of that fact. What can Back Benchers do, faced with this uncertainty about how Ministers take responsibility?

George Young: The hon. Lady has raised that issue in a week when we have had the first debate in Back-Bench time in 400 years on one reckoning and in 12 years on another. We are anxious to give Back Benchers more powers. She is perfectly entitled to ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the question that she has posed about funding for Slough. She will get an answer.

David Hanson: Will the Leader of the House explain why the Prime Minister is making a statement about the national citizen service now to Downing street and not to the House of Commons? Given that there will be no Prime Minister's questions until 8 September, can we arrange for the Prime Minister to come to the House on Monday to give a statement on that service, and also on Iraq, Afghanistan and Sheffield Forgemasters, so that he can clear up his Ministers' mess?

George Young: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had time to look at the document "The Coalition: our programme for government". He will see in it a clear commitment in the social action chapter to set up the national citizen service. There has been no fresh announcement of Government policy outside the House.

Alison Seabeck: A constituent of mine who was the victim of a serious child abuse episode, and her family, came face to face at their local hospital with the paedophile responsible; he was sat grinning in reception. Will it be possible during this Session, perhaps after the summer recess, to have a debate on how the rights of victims are being subordinated to those of perpetrators of crime?

George Young: I understand how distressing that encounter must have been. We must see whether there are better ways of protecting victims of paedophilia from those who have perpetrated it. I have taken note of the hon. Lady's bid for a debate. There could be a debate in Westminster Hall, or the Backbench Business Committee might like to take it on board.

Clive Betts: I know that the Leader of the House wishes that the question of Sheffield Forgemasters would go away, but it will not. When we have a further debate or statement on the subject, will he get Ministers who respond to address the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? When Ministers took the decision-we understand that they were Lib Dem Ministers-and officials were engaged in the discussions, were they aware of Andrew Cook's objections? Were they aware that Mr Cook was a major donor to the Tory party? Importantly, were they aware of his conflict of interest and that he was expressing an interest in personally investing in the company?

George Young: The issue of the Andrew Cook letter was dealt with extensively by the Minister of State in yesterday's debate. The hon. Gentleman had a half-hour Adjournment debate but took only nine minutes to develop his case at the beginning. He has had ample opportunity on the Floor of the Chamber to raise the issue of Sheffield Forgemasters.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to colleagues for their co-operation, which enabled no fewer than 48 Back-Bench Members to take part in business questions. We now come to the statement-

Hon. Members: What about points of order?

Mr Speaker: Points of order come after statements; we look forward to them with eager anticipation.

Equitable Life

Mark Hoban: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Equitable Life.
	Both coalition parties are committed to justice for Equitable Life's policyholders; we each made manifesto commitments, and these are reflected in our programme for government. No one should be in any doubt about our commitment to policyholders, who have waited a decade for justice. We are committed to implementing the parliamentary ombudsman's recommendation, made two years ago, and
	"to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders through an independent payment scheme for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure."
	We have taken important steps towards implementing that commitment. We announced in the Queen's Speech that a Bill would be presented to Parliament in this legislative Session, and today we are doing just that.
	When I came into office, I reviewed Sir John Chadwick's terms of reference and asked him to complete the work that he had started. I can tell the House that Sir John's report, alongside the extensive actuarial advice underpinning it, has been published today, and copies have been placed in the Vote Office. I want to thank Sir John for his dedication in completing this complex and challenging task. Sir John has helped to progress the aim to establish a scheme that is fair both to policyholders and to taxpayers. He has proposed a flexible approach to determining losses that eliminates the need for policyholders to show what they would have done if the maladministration had not occurred.
	I want to stress, however, that Sir John's review is just one of the building blocks in resolving what is a complex matter, and that there are other judgments to be made in determining the final shape of the scheme and the amounts that will be paid out. I have always been committed to dealing with this matter with the utmost transparency. I therefore want to set out to the House today the key elements of Sir John's methodology and the figures calculated at each intermediate step in quantifying losses according to his approach. First, however, let me make it clear that these are preliminary figures. There is further work to be done before a final estimate can be produced. These figures have been produced for the Treasury by Towers Watson, and I have placed a copy of its letter in the Vote Office.
	Let me remind the House that the ombudsman considered that the financial loss suffered by policyholders was a consequence of the reduction in policy values in July 2001. These amounted to a reduction in the gains they expected to make from their policies, rather than the sums they were contractually entitled to. As a result, Equitable Life's policies are lower in value today than they would have been without these cuts. The difference is the absolute loss, which Towers Watson estimates as being between £2.9 billion and £3.7 billion. Sir John then goes on to identify relative loss-that is, the difference between the returns that policyholders actually received from their Equitable Life policies and the returns they would have received if they had invested in a comparable product in an alternative life insurance company. This step produces a loss of between £4 billion and £4.8 billion.
	For a number of policyholders, because of the strong performance of comparable life companies, their relative loss is greater than the absolute loss they suffered. Consistent with the ombudsman's recommendation, Sir John has advised that relative loss for an individual policyholder should be capped at the absolute loss they suffered. It is hard to see how it would be fair either to the taxpayer or to other policyholders if some policyholders received more through redress than they had actually lost. If the proposed cap is adopted, then the figure will be £2.3 billion to £3 billion.
	Sir John and the Equitable members action group-EMAG-are in agreement that not all policyholders would have decided against investing in Equitable Life had its regulatory returns not been subject to maladministration. There is scope for debate about by how much investment would have been reduced. Sir John advises that the majority of policyholders would have invested in Equitable Life irrespective of maladministration. He therefore proposes that policyholders should receive only 20% to 25% of the capped figure that I mentioned. I know that some stakeholders will dispute this proportion. This results in a figure of £475 million to £650 million.
	Another difficult aspect of Sir John's methodology is the assessment of internal relative loss-the loss that policyholders have suffered as a result of keeping money in Equitable Life when it was not being regulated properly. Taking this step into account, Sir John's final loss figure is £400 million to £500 million. This figure is lower principally because a number of policyholders made relative gains as a result of maladministration.
	As I said earlier, Sir John's work is a building block that helps us to produce a fair and transparent payment scheme. I am aware that some of his findings will be contentious and are based on complex analysis, so I will reflect on his report and I will listen to representations by interested parties, including Equitable Life and EMAG, which has campaigned tenaciously on behalf of policyholders. As is apparent from the letter from Towers Watson, further work needs to be done over the summer to produce a final estimate of loss.
	As the ombudsman noted, it is appropriate to consider the impact of any scheme on the public purse. The scheme will be a significant spending commitment for this Government and will therefore be considered in light of what is affordable as a part of the spending review. I will set out the funding available for the scheme at the spending review on 20 October, alongside the final loss figure.
	The ombudsman also concluded that the design of the scheme should be independent of the Government. I support this view, and I announced on 26 May that I would establish an independent commission to advise on the best way to allocate payments to policyholders and help to develop the design of the scheme. Today I can announce that Brian Pomeroy, John Howard and John Tattersall have agreed to form the independent commission on Equitable Life payments. I believe that their experience and expertise will be invaluable to the commission, and I am confident that we have the right people to do the job. The commission will start work imminently so that we can begin making payments as soon as possible. I have asked the commission to report by the end of January 2011.
	The final question that I would like to address is how soon policyholders will receive payments. I would like to end the plight of policyholders as quickly as possible, and I aim to begin making payments in the middle of next year. If we are to achieve this goal, however, it is important to avoid any unnecessary delays. I will do all that I can to make sure we stick to this timetable, and I hope all interested parties will help us to do so. This is, however, a very complex task. We have made much progress since the Government were formed, but there is a great deal left to do. We need a simple, transparent and fair scheme that meets the needs of 1.5 million policyholders who have between them 2 million policies and have made 30 million premium payments. It is in the interests of each of those policyholders to complete this task quickly, but also carefully and thoughtfully.
	In the past two months, we have published Sir John's report; set up the independent commission on Equitable Life payments; published the first robust figures surrounding the calculation of relative loss; opened up the process, making it much more transparent; put in place a framework for the payment scheme; and produced legislation to give the Treasury statutory authority to make payments. We have achieved more in two months than the last Government did in the two years since the ombudsman reported. The coalition Government have demonstrated their commitment to justice for Equitable Life policyholders, and I commend this statement to the House.

Liam Byrne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement and for the opportunity to review Sir John's report in full at the Treasury this morning.
	I would like to start by repeating the words of apology to Equitable Life policyholders that I made to the House earlier this year for the failure of regulation of Equitable Life under successive Governments between 1990 and 2001.
	I thank Sir John Chadwick for his detailed report, which we commissioned. He has taken on an extraordinarily complex matter, and he has done an admirable job. I also thank officials at the Treasury for the work that they have done over the past six months in getting ready the legislation which I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has published today. I, too, thank EMAG. I am grateful for the work done by the all-party Equitable Life policyholders group, chaired by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton).
	When I came to the House earlier in the year, I said that there was a clear ethical obligation, even if not a legal obligation, for compensation for Equitable Life policyholders. Equally, however, I knew that case-by-case compensation for policyholders, as suggested by the ombudsman, was not practical. I said that there were two tests for the right solution-speed and justice. I went on to say that we expected the Government to produce a report within two weeks of Sir John's final report, which we wanted to see in May. So here we are in July, and there are a few questions that I should like to put to the Minister this afternoon.
	First, is the Minister actually accepting Sir John's recommendation? Earlier in the year he did a good impression of wanting to ditch Sir John's approach and revert to the one set out by the ombudsman. Today, Sir John makes it clear in paragraph 10.17 that the ombudsman's approach
	"poses very difficult issues of principle, and would be impossible to implement within any realistic time-frame."
	Can the Minister confirm that Sir John's approach is the right one? He called it one of the building blocks, but will he set out whether he is accepting Sir John's report?
	The second question that the House will want to know the answer to is who precisely will be entitled to help. Sir John states in paragraph 6.3 that help should cover new investments made between 1 September 1992 and 31 December 2000. Does the Minister agree with that approach? How many policyholders will be included on that basis, and how many will be excluded?
	Thirdly, how much are policyholders actually going to get? Part 6 of the report sets out an approach and a method for calculating losses. Can the Minister confirm that what he has just said is that the maximum compensation will be based on a quarter of the relative losses faced by policyholders, and that that figure will itself be capped at absolute loss? Many policyholders will find that hard to square with what he said in the House earlier this year. What the House will want to know this afternoon is how much, on average, policyholders will actually get.
	Fourthly, how quickly does the Minister want to complete this process? I am glad that he wants to get started next year, but the House will want to know how quickly he wants the final payments to be made. Finally, what appeal mechanism will the Government put in place for those policyholders who want to challenge their individual determinations?
	It is incumbent on all of us to speed this matter to resolution. I am glad that the Minister has set out legislation this afternoon, and we will support it going through as rapidly as possible, but there are questions that our constituents will want answers to today. I hope that he will be as full as he can in replying to what I have asked.

Mark Hoban: I find the right hon. Gentleman's comments rich, as he was a member of the Government who for nine years sought to frustrate, block and delay investigations into Equitable Life and its regulation; who ignored Lord Penrose's findings of maladministration in 2004; who did everything they could to stop the ombudsman's second inquiry; who bombarded the ombudsman with new documents and comments on her draft report; who took six months to reply to her report when it was published; and who set up a review by Sir John with a report carefully timed to be released after the general election. I will take no lessons at all from him about speed of response.
	Sir John's report sets out a range of approaches to calculating loss. As I said in my statement-the right hon. Gentleman had sight of it, as he said-I have not accepted that report. I will reflect on Sir John's findings and think very carefully about them. The amount that policyholders will receive will be determined by a number of factors, and partly by the compensation figure set as part of the spending review process, as I said very carefully in my statement. The independent commission will need to respond to that matter when it designs the payment scheme, which was a key recommendation of the ombudsman that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues rejected but we are prepared to accept and put in place. He will have to wait until that scheme design has taken place and we have worked through its implications across 1.5 million policyholders, their 2 million different policies and the 30 million transactions that they entered into.
	I am determined that the scheme will proceed as quickly as possible and that we can resolve the problems faced by Equitable Life policyholders-problems that the right hon. Gentleman and his party did little to sort out over the course of the past nine years.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. This is a very important statement, and a lot of hon. and right hon. Members wish to take part in the exchanges on it, but there is also very important business to follow, so there are pressures on time. What is now required is brevity.

David Davis: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on achieving so much in two months. He said that he had done more in two months than Labour did in two years, but he underestimates it. He has done more in two months than they did in 10 years.
	Nevertheless, there is a great deal left to be done, as my hon. Friend himself said. Halfway through next year is still a long time to wait for many of the more elderly policyholders. Can he give the House an undertaking that he will stick to that timetable so that those policyholders receive their compensation before they die, in many cases? He said that he was still considering Sir John Chadwick's proposals. Will he ensure that not only he but the independent commission takes representations from EMAG, and do so quickly?

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for welcoming the statement. I am committed to the process taking place as quickly as possible. There are some challenges in the design of the scheme that we will need to think about when it comes to payments, but I am determined to ensure that payments start at the end of the first half of next year.
	I want EMAG and others to take part in the debate about the scheme, and I am very happy for them to make representations to the independent commission that will help to draw up the detail of the scheme. I think we have a programme that will deliver justice in a way that is more robust, transparent and open than the process set out by the previous Government. I would also say to my right hon. Friend that we would have been in a better place if the previous Government had acted sooner to tackle the problem rather than trying to kick it into the long grass.

Malcolm Wicks: I appreciate the difficulties of calculating loss and the complexities of the process that the Minister has set up, but can he give us any idea of the percentage range of compensation that our distressed constituents might receive? That is the question that people want an answer to.

Mark Hoban: I accept that point. It would have been better if this whole process had started much sooner and we could have given policyholders much more assurance. We will not be able to determine how much will be paid to policyholders until we go through the spending review process, but I have committed to return to the House in October to say how much will be allocated by way of compensation. That pot of compensation will then be allocated by the independent commission.

Peter Bottomley: I am a member of EMAG, but I will not take any compensation for my own benefit.
	May I put it to my hon. Friend that his statement will be welcomed? However, although no one thought that £4 billion was likely to come, most of my constituents-I probably have more than most who are affected-would regard £400 million as less than they expected. About £1 billion would be far more likely to be acceptable and proper.

Mark Hoban: As I said in my statement, we need to look carefully at Sir John's report and the basis on which he calculated losses, and we will feed that into the spending review process. However, I take on board my hon. Friend's points.

Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman's failure to disclose the figure for the likely compensation today is unlikely to reassure Equitable pension holders. What they are looking for is a body to be set up that is both independent of the Treasury and totally transparent in delivering figures that they can trust. They are looking for him to expedite that so that payment will be made as soon as possible.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully to statements given in the House. The independent commission is at arm's length from the Treasury and will be responsible for designing the payment scheme. I would have thought his constituents would welcome that independence and transparency, which was not evident in the ideas put forward by his colleagues.

David Rutley: Can the Minister provide more detail on the advice and guidance that will be provided to those affected by this sad situation, following his announcement and given the extreme passage of time?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some of the changes that I want to make to the process of ensuring that Equitable Life policyholders receive justice are to do with speed and transparency. More information will be available to policyholders on the Treasury website, where they will be able to see some of the work that Sir John has done and the letter that Towers Watson provided to us. There will also be questions and answers on the website to help address their concerns.

Kevin Barron: Given that the Financial Secretary said that the cost to the Exchequer will be considered in the light of what is affordable according to the spending review, will the independent commission, which is designing the disbursement scheme, have terms of reference that allow it to challenge or influence the amount in the light of its findings?

Mark Hoban: I may be old-fashioned, but I think that it is up to Parliament to decide amounts that are spent and taxes that are raised. The commission will have a role in designing the scheme, but it is important that Parliament takes a view about how much should be spent. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the ombudsman herself said in her report that we need to take into account the impact of any compensation arrangements on the public purse.

Lorely Burt: My hon. Friend will know that EMAG and many Equitable Life members consider that Sir John Chadwick's remit, which the Labour party set when it was in government, is deeply flawed. I am glad that my hon. Friend says that what he has announced will be only one building block. Why will Equitable Life members get only 20 to 25% of the absolute loss? Can he reassure me that retrospective payments for Equitable Life members who died waiting for justice will be honoured?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes two important points. She referred to the cap of 20 to 25%, which is Sir John's assessment and proposal. I am conscious that others, including EMAG, have different views about what the proportion should be, but they accept the principle that some policyholders would have stayed with Equitable Life. Her second point, about the estates of deceased policyholders, is very important. I have given the commission wide terms of reference, with two exceptions. First, it must take into account the estates of deceased policyholders-that is fair. Secondly, there should be no means-testing.

Denis MacShane: The Financial Secretary's fair and measured statement might be taken more seriously had he not, in opposition, belaboured the Labour Government and made wild promises about paying full compensation to Equitable Life policyholders. Does he understand that people thought-

Hon. Members: Where's your tie?

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. The question of his neckwear or lack of it is of no concern to the House. I just want to hear what he has to say.

Denis MacShane: Mr Speaker, I have just had extensive root canal treatment and cannot tighten anything around my neck-I am terribly sorry-but I can open my mouth. Does the Financial Secretary understand that Equitable Life policyholders will feel betrayed? When will the Government stop doing endless U-turns?

Mark Hoban: Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman wears a tie, it does not add to the sense that he makes when asking questions. We made it clear in opposition that we accepted the ombudsman's findings the day she published her report, unlike the Labour Government, who took six months to do that. We accepted the recommendations that compensation should be for relative loss and that account should be taken of the impact on the public purse. We have been consistent in that approach. I do not believe that the Conservative party has U-turned in any way. We have stuck to our commitment and made more progress on the matter in the past two months than the Labour party made in two years.

Heather Wheeler: I am delighted with the Financial Secretary's announcement. The largest postbag that I receive as a south Derbyshire MP is about Equitable Life. It is disgraceful that the matter has been going on for so long. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend and greatly look forward to the announcements next April.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is not the only Member with a bulging postbag as a consequence of the issue. I am surprised at how many more of my constituents have announced that they are Equitable Life policyholders since I became the Minister responsible. I believe that there is good news in the statement, and I hope that hon. Friends will contact their constituents who have policies to let them know about the coalition's progress.

Fabian Hamilton: I think that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary deserves some credit for his work on the issue. However, I thank the Financial Secretary for his helpful statement. Will he attend a meeting of the all-party group when it is re-formed so that a more detailed discussion can take place, given the shortage of time here and all hon. Members' interest in the issue?

Mark Hoban: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's excellent work as one of the joint chairmen of the all-party group. I note that the shadow Chief Secretary spoke to its members early this year, and I am happy to do the same. We have a good story to tell and I will not turn down any opportunities to tell it.

Mark Field: Does the Financial Secretary feel bound by the 20 to 25% cap that Sir John seems to have plucked from the sky, or does he share my view that that flies entirely in the face of the transparency that the Government are trying to achieve for Equitable Life policyholders?

Mark Hoban: The debate is one of proportion rather than principle. In its representations on the matter, EMAG accepted that some policyholders would have stayed with Equitable Life or invested in it, despite knowing that it was not properly regulated. Indeed, several people joined Equitable Life quite late on, when its problems were well known, so there is some sense to the approach. The debate is about proportion, and I am prepared to take representations on that.

Paul Flynn: It is unfortunate that the Financial Secretary has omitted any word of gratitude to Tony Wright and other members of the Public Administration Committee, who pursued the matter with great energy and intelligence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to make the issue a political football. My constituents will ask what alchemy reduced £4.8 billion to a maximum of £650 million. Why do they have to wait another year? Were they not deceived by the Conservatives' exaggerated claims in their election propaganda?

Mark Hoban: Given that the hon. Gentleman was meant to be seeking a bipartisan spirit, it did not last much longer than his first sentence. I paid tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton), and I know from discussions with hon. Members of all parties that all Members of Parliament want to get the matter resolved. We all have constituents who have been involved, and the Public Administration Committee was one of many routes whereby the previous Government were pursued to deliver justice for policyholders quickly.

Tessa Munt: I thank the Financial Secretary very much indeed for his comments about the speed with which he will deal with the matter, particularly on behalf of my 80-year-old constituent, Jim Barratt, who said that, at his age, time was not on his side. Given that the coalition has declared that it will apply transparency to the matter, has EMAG received the information on "Head A" calculations, which it requested, but was not forthcoming under the previous Administration?

Mark Hoban: I have made it my duty to maintain a good and open relationship with EMAG. I met its members again earlier this week and I spoke to the chairman, Paul Braithwaite, this morning to advise him that I was making the statement. Today, I am publishing 2,500 pages of material that help underpin Sir John's work and I hope that people who are interested will examine that in detail and respond to his findings and the actuarial advice that he received.

Dennis Skinner: When the policyholders realise just how much they will get, they will think that it is a far cry from all the statements by the then Tory Treasury spokesman, who has somehow landed up as Secretary of State for Transport, and the Liberal spokesman, who promised the moon and to pay everything in full. The small print indicates that those policyholders will now realise that the Tory party and the coalition are in full retreat on the payments that they should receive.

Mark Hoban: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about pension arrangements, but in all the debates in which I participated on the matter, whether in Westminster Hall or Opposition day debates, I do not think that he spoke up once for Equitable Life policyholders.

Sam Gyimah: I thank the Financial Secretary for the speedy and decisive action that the Government have taken in the past two months. However, my constituents will ask whether, given that Sir John's report is supposed to be a founding block, there is any likelihood of moving towards fuller compensation. Secondly, my hon. Friend mentioned the spending review. How fixed is the £400 million to £500 million? Could the figure be lower?

Mark Hoban: Sir John's report presents a range of numbers, which we need to look at in the context of the spending review. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary will hear Members' representations on the matter, but we need to ensure that we put this matter in the context of the other spending commitments that the Government wish to make.

Albert Owen: I have been consistent in my support of the parliamentary ombudsman recommendations, and I welcome the Financial Secretary's statement as a building block. He has been very clear that he wants payments to begin in the middle of next year, but may I press on him an appeals procedure, because if we do not have one or a timetable for appeals, the matter could drag on for many years?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point and I am grateful for his welcome of today's statement and the progress that I announced. He is absolutely right about an appeals mechanism, and the Treasury are looking at that proposal at the moment. Policyholders who question the data that are used-some data are quite old and policies are complex-will want a mechanism by which they can appeal, so that is important. However, I am keen to ensure that the appeals process is quick and thorough, so that people are comfortable with the outcome they get.

Stephen Hammond: I congratulate my hon. Friend. As someone who took part in the Equitable Life debate in March, I do not recognise some of the wilder accusations that are being levelled against him. May I press him on the key point of his statement, which is the capped figure? I think he confirmed to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) that he will review the figure when he reflects on Sir John's report, but will he confirm that he will publish, and make a statement on, his methodology as to how he reaches it, whether or not he agrees with the report?

Mark Hoban: As part of the spending review process, I have already committed to publishing not only the amount of compensation the taxpayer can afford to pay, but the final loss figure. My objective is to be as transparent as possible on that calculation.

Sarah Wollaston: Although I congratulate the Minister on the undoubted speed and transparency of the process, many of my constituents will be seeking reassurance that it is safe to save in future. Will the cap of 20 to 25% be sufficient in giving them that reassurance? If not, what other measures will be taken?

Mark Hoban: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Many people's confidence in saving has been shaken as a consequence of what happened at Equitable Life, but she will recall that last month, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced reforms to the regulation of financial services, which will include a new consumer champion-a consumer markets and protection authority. That is one way to help to improve regulation and to give people confidence about saving for their future.

Andrew Bingham: I congratulate the Minister on the speed with which he has dealt with this matter compared with the previous Labour Government. He is looking to make payments in mid-2011, which is a great deal better than the other lot led us to believe, but winter is coming up-winters tend to be a bit colder in the High Peak than in other constituencies-so is there any opportunity to make interim payments?

Mark Hoban: That suggestion has been made on a number of occasions, and I thought very carefully about interim payments. It is difficult to make an interim payment before the scheme is designed. Such payments would add complexity and delay to the creation of the scheme. When the commission considers its findings, I hope it may well decide that certain groups should receive payments in priority to others.

Rehman Chishti: Policyholders in my constituency were pushed from pillar to post and had to get judicial review to get some accountability, but the previous Government did absolutely nothing. With regard to the timeline of making payments by the middle of May next year, what criteria will be applied as to who gets their money first?

Mark Hoban: That will be a matter for the independent commission. One key point for EMAG and the ombudsman was the setting up of that commission. I want to give it the maximum latitude to decide its priorities for payment and who should be paid first.

Brian Binley: The Financial Secretary has intimated that he aims to begin to make payments by the middle of next year. Thirty thousand policyholders, including a sizeable number in my constituency, have already died, and I urge him to rethink the question of making a pro rata, interim payment based on his cap figure. Will he please think about that more seriously than his previous answers suggest, because I am fearful that more people in my constituency will die and not receive fair treatment?

Mark Hoban: Many hon. Friends have raised that issue with me in debates in recent weeks, and I have asked my officials to look carefully at it. I have also thought through very carefully how we could make such a proposal work, but I am yet to be persuaded that we can do so in a way that is fair to policyholders who might not receive an interim payment.

Nicky Morgan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his announcement. Many of my constituents will be delighted at the speed with which he has tackled the matter. I noted the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury's apology, but also that it was limited to Equitable Life policyholders. He did not apologise for the fact that the economic situation left behind by the previous Government has limited necessarily the payments that my constituents and others will receive. Should his apology extend to that?

Mark Hoban: I am not going to refer to the letter that the former Chief Secretary left for his successor, but I must say that I did not get one from him on Equitable Life.

Aidan Burley: Does the Minister agree that it is important that the compensation scheme is seen to be administered by an independent commission, and that it was wrong of the previous Government to ignore many of the parliamentary ombudsman's recommendations?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that the scheme should be designed to be independent. That is what will give maximum credibility to the scheme, and that will get maximum transparency for, and maximum support from, Equitable Life policyholders.

Graham Stuart: Equitable Life was a poisoned pill left by the previous Government, even if no note accompanied it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) rightly said, 30,000 people have died waiting for justice. Conservatives, who have long pushed for justice for policyholders, recognise that there will be an element of rough justice no matter what happens. Will the Financial Secretary ensure that the process is speedy? Even if interim payments are not possible, will he bring the matter to a close quickly, so that people can have certainty, because they did not get that from the previous Government?

Mark Hoban: I accept my hon. Friend's point about speed, but I also accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on the need for appeals mechanisms, because rough justice works both ways, and we need to ensure that people are treated fairly under the scheme.

Robert Smith: I welcome the fact that the Financial Secretary has recognised that the 25% cap will probably be the greatest concern of many of our constituents. He said that he will receive representations, but what is the deadline for those? People will want to influence him on that decision.

Mark Hoban: As I said, the process for deciding on the maximum compensation that is payable will conclude at the spending review, and we will publish the results on 20 October. I encourage the hon. Gentleman's constituents to write sooner rather than later in that process. There are a range of views on that number and people will have their opinions on whether it is appropriate, but of course, we must set the overall position in the context of what the public purse can afford.

Nadhim Zahawi: We have heard a non-apology from the shadow Chief Secretary for the previous Government's obfuscation. Will the Minister write to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to ask for a special communications allowance for Labour Members, so that they can write and apologise to the families of the 30,000 people who have died and the 1.5 million policyholders who have had to wait 10 years?

Mr Speaker: Order. That question may be amusing, but I am afraid that it is irrelevant to the Minister's responsibilities, and he must not answer it.

James Morris: May I welcome the Minister's announcement and the speed with which he has come to the House to outline the next steps in the process? Further to an earlier question, will he clarify the time scale in which he wants to receive further representations from interested parties? He said that he wants to reflect on Sir John's findings, but can he give us an indication of the time scale for receiving those representations?

Mark Hoban: I have not set a formal deadline or time scale, but I am sure that over the summer recess, my hon. Friends will talk to policyholders in their constituencies and gather their views. The Leader of the House today announced a debate on 14 September, I believe, on Second Reading of the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill, which might give my hon. Friends the opportunity to make an oral representation.

Sajid Javid: Earlier this month, I held a public meeting in my constituency on Equitable Life, and I heard directly from many policyholders how they suffered, especially because of the inaction of the previous Government and their callous disregard for their rights. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the coalition Government will do all they can to end the long suffering of the Equitable Life victims?

Mark Hoban: Indeed I can give that commitment. I am also very mindful that at points over the previous nine years, the previous Government could have acted to bring justice to policyholders but chose not to do so. I am afraid that that is another aspect of that Government's legacy that the Conservatives have to sort out.

Dominic Raab: I welcome the fact that the Minister has moved so swiftly. Equitable Life victims in Elmbridge, like those across the country, were subject to the most shabby treatment by the last Government and no amount of synthetic outrage now can hide that. They feel raw and their trust in government is almost totally undermined. May we have further reassurance that there will be close consultation with the victims in the weeks ahead, especially on the vital issue of quantum and the mooted cap?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Confidence in this process was significantly eroded by the previous Government. I hope that what I have announced today will enable policyholders to turn a new page and recognise that we are determined to be much more open and transparent in our approach, and that will help to build the credibility of the process.

Andrew Percy: Policyholders in my constituency are not interested in apologies that come nine years too late: they want justice. The Financial Secretary has outlined the start date for payments, but will he set a concluding date for the completion of this whole saga?

Mark Hoban: I am conscious that this is a very complex business. There are 1.5 million policyholders with 2 million policies and 30 million transactions. The policies are not straightforward and the data are old and difficult to access. I want to do as much as I can to make the process as quick as possible, and my hon. Friend has my commitment that I will do everything that I can to ensure that the date is speeded up.

Julian Lewis: Dozens of my constituents affected by the scandal, and a cousin who lives abroad, were favourably impressed by what was said in opposition creditably by Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs. Will my hon. Friend accept that the experience of root canal surgery by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) will be as nothing compared with what those MPs will suffer if we fail to live up to our promises? I welcome the speed with which my hon. Friend is taking action, but the content of that action must live up to the speed.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is right. Each of us who signed a pledge at the general election will want to ensure that we deliver on that pledge, and no one takes that more seriously than I do.

Points of Order

Pat McFadden: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday at Prime Minister's questions, the Deputy Prime Minister, when trying to justify the recent decision by the Government to refuse the proposed loan of £80 million to Sheffield Forgemasters said that the decision taken by the last Government had been made knowing the funds were not available. He said:
	"Lord Mandelson was writing out cheques to companies like Forgemasters, which he knew would bounce". -[ Official Report, 21 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 343.]
	But I am in possession of a letter sent to me a few days ago by the permanent secretary at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills commenting on the financial controls in place during the time that the decision to approve the loan was taken. That letter says that
	"when a new project or policy is considered the Department provides thorough advice to Ministers, including on the following aspects: value for money, legal implications, delivery of policy objectives, stakeholder and media reaction and available sources of funding. When funding cannot be identified from within existing departmental budgets it is agreed with HM Treasury.
	I confirm that the process above was in place while you were a Minister here".
	In other words, the permanent secretary, an official for whom I have the highest regard, is clear that it was not the case that the previous Secretary of State approved financial decisions for which funds were not available. The Deputy Prime Minister has already got his facts wrong on the directors' shareholdings. We also have the news that a major Tory donor wrote to the Government specifically on this point and appealing for the loan not to be granted. Now the permanent secretary's letter shows that the Deputy Prime Minister has got his facts wrong again, this time on the issue of financial approval of the loan itself.
	I ask you, Mr Speaker, how can we ensure that when the Deputy Prime Minister next speaks at the Dispatch box, he does not simply spray around unfounded accusations but gets his facts right on this crucial issue?

Mr Speaker: The straightforward answer to that point of order is that-if memory serves me correctly-there will be an opportunity to question the Deputy Prime Minister on Tuesday next week. If hon. Members wish to put questions to the Deputy Prime Minister on the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, they will have an opportunity-not least in topical questions-to do so.
	So far as the wider comments the right hon. Gentleman made are concerned, I can only reiterate what I have already said about the correction of errors and underline the importance of Members using their own devices to pursue those matters. I cannot be drawn into the debate. The right hon. Gentleman has stated his position and I have indicated what opportunities there are for the pursuit of the matter.

Gordon Marsden: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier this week I raised a point of order with you about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government saying in the House that he would not make any announcement about the abolition of Government offices and he was currently discussing that with interested parties-despite the fact that he had written to the contrary to the Deputy Prime Minister nine days previously. On that occasion you said that you had had no indication that the Secretary of State would come to the House to make a statement.
	This morning, a written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State has announced that 1,700 posts in 10 Government offices are to be abolished. That follows a meeting that he had last night with trade union representatives when he said that he would reflect on the issues and discuss them. That is the second time in a week that the Secretary of State has indicated one thing and done another. Is it not reasonable that he should now come to the House to make a formal statement on an important issue that will affect governance and on which he has ducked and dived by making that written ministerial statement this morning?

Mr Speaker: The Secretary of State has chosen to disclose his policy through a written ministerial statement and it is open to any Minister from any Department to do that. The hon. Gentleman and others may be dissatisfied with that, and it is open to them to interrogate the Secretary of State about whatever contradictions they believe that his course of action has embodied or caused. But it is not for me to rule on whether there should be a written ministerial statement or an oral statement. The hon. Gentleman has aired his concern and I have a feeling that he will continue to air it.

Chris Skidmore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday, the shadow Education Minister, the hon. Member for Gelding (Vernon Coaker), who is in his place, told the House:
	"Just last month, the Swedish Education Minister warned the UK against adopting the free school model, stating:
	'We have actually seen a fall in the quality of Swedish schools since the free schools were introduced'". -[ Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 124.]
	I believe that he was referring to an article in  The Sunday Mirror on 30 May 2010. However the Swedish education Minister Bertil Ostberg said the next day in a Swedish publication  Varldenidag:
	"The article is very biased. It is taken out of context and misleading. I have not warned the British Government against introducing Free Schools. As for the Swedish Free Schools, I clearly said to the newspaper that the Swedish Free Schools are here to stay and it is something positive".
	The shadow Minister's statement on Monday was therefore inaccurate. Will there be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to come to this House and correct that inaccuracy?

Mr Speaker: First, I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). Secondly, I have no responsibility for Swedish Ministers, Swedish schools, Swedish policies or Swedish newspapers.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am genuinely sorry to have to bring this point of order to your attention and to seek your clarification and guidance. I had hoped to receive clarification from the Leader of the House earlier, but did not do so. It is a fundamental point, not about individuals or personalities but about the procedures of this place. As a shadow Minister, when I step up to the Dispatch box I speak for the shadow ministerial team and I speak collectively. I did the same as a Minister when I spoke with the authority of Government and I had a responsibility to speak on behalf of the Government.
	It seems this week that we have had several situations in which statements that have been made have not been prefaced with the phrase "I speak in a personal capacity", but spoken as the Deputy Prime Minister or other Minister. Can you provide guidance on that point, for both the shadow Cabinet and the Government? Alternatively, can you show us how we can trust that statements made at the prestigious and honoured position at the Dispatch Box are Government statements, not individual views? If we wanted to give our individual views, we could go on "Thought for the Day" on Radio 4.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Ministers speak from the Dispatch Box as Ministers, not as individuals or on behalf of parties. Ministers are responsible for what they say, and I must assume that they speak in the House on behalf of the Government.

Geraint Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At a recent Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister suggested that Lord Mandelson was going around the country with a cheque book giving out tens of billions of pounds. I now understand, from research in the Library, that the figure is hundreds of millions of pounds-a factor of 100 times less. What steps will you take, Mr Speaker, to ensure that this grotesque misleading of the nation and Parliament is corrected on the Floor of the House?

Mr Speaker: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is: none. That is for the simple reason that he is seeking, and has sought, to continue a debate.

Alison Seabeck: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would welcome your clarification, not least in the light of the debate that was held here on Tuesday about the pre-release of statements prior to the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box. I do not have Superman's X-ray vision, and I stand to be corrected on this, but I saw a Government Parliamentary Private Secretary come to the House and distribute among Government Back-Bench Members a document that looked very much like the statement that the Minister then went on to read. Can you offer your guidance, Mr Speaker, so that that sort of thing does not happen in the future, if indeed it happened today?

Mr Speaker: When a statement is made and has been delivered, copies are made available to all Members. That is the proper way in which to proceed. I hope that is clear.

Alison Seabeck: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure it requires it, but we shall see. We shall give the hon. Lady another bite of the cherry.

Alison Seabeck: The document in question, which may or may not have been a statement, was distributed during business questions, although it might have been something else.

Mr Speaker: What I have already said in response to the hon. Lady's point of order stands. I am happy to reflect further on the point, but I am not sure I want to get into the issue of precisely at what point these statements are distributed. If anything further is required on that matter, no doubt she will come back to me, and I will be happy to seek to respond. But that will do for now.

Julian Lewis: Further to the point of order by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), whom I much admire, may I, through you, Mr Speaker, reassure her that the pieces of paper to which she referred contained nothing more noxious than a few helpful suggestions of questions that might be asked-a practice that, while not entirely to be praised, is not unknown on both sides of the House, whether in government or opposition?

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the House is enriched as a result of that point of order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

David Wright: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been reflecting on your guidance to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) about the position of the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to remarks attributed to him on a personal basis. Given your guidance to the House, Mr Speaker, do you think it appropriate that the Deputy Prime Minister should now come back to the House to clarify his statement yesterday during Prime Minister's questions that the war in Iraq was an "illegal" war?

Mr Speaker: My response to the hon. Gentleman is that he is pushing his luck. I have ruled on this matter, and I have nothing to add.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.  57 )
	The Deputy Prime Minister, supported by the Prime Minister, Sir George Young, Mr Mark Harper and Mr David Heath, presented a Bill to make provision about the dissolution of Parliament and the determination of polling days for parliamentary general elections; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time  on  Monday 26 July, and to be printed (Bill 64) with explanatory notes (Bill 64-EN).

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.  57 )
	The Deputy Prime Minister, supported by the Prime Minister, Sir George Young, Mr Mark Harper and Mr David Heath, presented a Bill to make provision for a referendum on the voting system for parliamentary elections and to provide for parliamentary elections to be held under the alternative vote system if a majority of those voting in the referendum are in favour of that; to make provision about the number and size of parliamentary constituencies; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 26 July, and to be printed (Bill 63) with explanatory notes (Bill 63-EN)

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.  57 )
	Mark Hoban, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Danny Alexander, Mr Francis Maude, Mr David Gauke and Justine Greening, presented a Bill to provide finance for payments in cases where persons have been adversely affected by maladministration in the regulation before December 2001 of the Equitable Life Assurance Society; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 26 July, and to be printed (Bill 62) with explanatory notes (Bill 62-EN)

Academies Bill [ Lords]
	 — 
	[2nd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee (Progress reported 21 July)

[Dawn Primarolo  in the Chair]

Clause 2
	 — 
	Payments under Academy agreements

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move amendment 70, page 2, line 26, at end insert-
	'(1A) Payments may be made in respect of capital expenditure under an Academy agreement to an additional school only where the Secretary of State has first consulted with-
	(a) local parents and children,
	(b) the relevant local authority,
	(c) any other persons deemed appropriate.
	(1B) The purpose of the consultation under (1A) shall be to establish whether there are outstanding requirements for capital investment for existing schools in the area where the school is (or is proposed to be) situated.
	(1C) Where a need is demonstrated the Secretary of State may not make payments with respect of capital expenditure under subsection (1).
	(1D) A school is an "additional school" for the purposes of this section if-
	(a) it does not replace a maintained school that has been or is to be discontinued, and
	(b) it is not a school in respect of which an Academy order has effect.
	(1E) For the purposes of subsection (1D)(a) a school does not replace a maintained school if it provides education for pupils of a wider range of ages than the maintained school.'.
	It is a privilege to be back standing here as the hon. Member for Gedling-

David Evennett: We will never look at the shadow Minister in the same way again.

Vernon Coaker: I know. Perhaps it is the way I speak. Anyway, it is a delight to be back here. It does not seem long ago that we were finishing the debate last night- [Interruption.] No, it was not long ago. I am sure we have all had plenty of opportunity to enjoy ourselves in the intervening period and not think of anything but the Academies Bill and all the other relevant papers and documents.
	Amendment 70 is an important amendment, particularly given the fiasco-frankly-of the past few weeks with respect to the Building Schools for the Future programme, the cuts to it, the reassessments and the other problems with the list. I will not rehearse those problems, but the relevance of and the need for the amendment are even more acute than they would have been had it not been for what has happened over the past few weeks. Schools up and down the country were expecting capital moneys to be provided for them to improve schools and tackle problems with school buildings. Many of those proposals were developed by local authorities, and many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will have helped to work up those plans over a number of months and, sometimes, one or two years, because the school-building programme was linked to school reorganisation for school improvement. But of course that was all dashed by the lists published and the review announced by the Secretary of State for Education in order to prove that he could cut budgets.
	The Government are now looking to create new schools using money from their budgets. Their defence is: "Don't worry, this isn't coming from Building Schools for the Future money. It's actually coming from cuts to low-priority computer programmes", and they talk about £50 million. However, neither the Secretary of State nor the schools Minister ever add that the £50 million is up until March 2011 only; and neither do they mention that there have been, I understand, 38 expressions of interest to the New Schools Network, which has since sought to talk to the Department. Is it 38? When he replies to the amendment, will the Minister tell us how many free schools he expects to open? I understand that the first is due to open in September 2011. How many such expressions of interest have there been so far? How many of those have changed from expressions of interest to applications? How many does he expect to open in 2011? Alongside that, how many does he expect £50 million will pay for? What will that £50 million mean for those 38 schools?

Derek Twigg: Has my hon. Friend seen the podcast on the Department for Education website by the Secretary of State, where he says that all schools will get more money, more efficiently and more cheaply? How is that possible, given that he has just cut the BSF programme?

Vernon Coaker: Frankly, the reality is that it is not possible. What we are getting from the Secretary of State is an explanation for what he has done on the grounds that the money was not there in the budget for the Building Schools for the Future programme, when the letter from the permanent secretary to the shadow Secretary of State quite clearly points out that the money for BSF was set aside in the proper way. The school rebuilding programme in my hon. Friend's constituency has not been cut; it has been absolutely massacred. That money was there, and the permanent secretary-this is an extremely important point that will bear repeating on a number of occasions-said in the letter to the shadow Secretary of State that if the proper procedures had not been followed according to Treasury rules, the permanent secretary would have required a ministerial direction to proceed with the policy, as my hon. Friend knows. The permanent secretary at the Department for Education has confirmed that, in fact, no such ministerial direction was given, so my hon. Friend now knows the reality.
	As for this £50 million, we are now being told, "Don't worry, it's not going to affect school budgets. It's not going to be a problem with respect to school buildings." However, free schools are already being affected across the country.

Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He was very generous yesterday too, and the Committee appreciated the answers to some of the questions. However, he is talking now as if, under Labour's proposals, the money for Building Schools for the Future was already in the bank-that is, already in the Department. However, it was made clear time and again that the money for Building Schools for the Future would be made available from savings made elsewhere. He talks as if the money was already in existence and had been earmarked, but that is complete and utter nonsense. It is now being spread about that schools would have been assured of that money, but the previous Government gave no such assurance.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman and I often agree on education matters, but on this particular matter I do not agree with him. He will know-not only from his experience in the House, but from his local authority experience, which he had on a local education authority, as he reminded us yesterday-that when we talk about money being available, that means money being accounted for in the proper way, so that proposals to do certain things in the future are made according to the rules laid down by the Treasury. The Treasury will not allow anyone to say that they will involve schools in various-for example, in Building Schools for the Future-unless they conform to certain rules. The point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is that the then Secretary of State-now the shadow Secretary of State-conformed to all the Treasury rules to ensure that when those schools became ready for rebuilding, the money was there in the proper way.
	I was also making the point that free schools, which are the Secretary of State's preferred route forward, are already saying they are feeling the consequences of the changes that the Government have made. In the  Yorkshire Post on 9 July-I will not read out the headline, in order to save the Secretary of State from embarrassment-it was reported that free school pioneers are worried about the impact of the changes that the Government are making and feel that they have "dealt a blow" to their proposals to establish a free school in Kirklees. Whether it is right or wrong to have a free school in Kirklees, it is not just those on the Opposition Benches who are saying that the position with respect to Building Schools for the Future has caused problems for existing schools. People whom one would have expected to support the Government-indeed, to come out dancing on the streets about what they are doing-are now turning round and saying, "Actually, the route the Government are pursuing is causing a problem."
	One of the good things about being in Committee is that it gives us the opportunity to look at things in detail. When the Minister replies to this debate, I wonder whether he will comment on the terms of reference for the capital programme, which I want gently to share with the Committee. I do not know whether my hon. Friends or other members of the Committee have had a chance to look at the terms of reference for the allocation of capital funds-they might want to refer them to their constituents, because they are contained in one of those papers that gets tucked away, but which has huge significance-but there are five of them. The second is:
	"To consider how to generate sufficient places to allow new providers to enter the state school system in response to parental demand"-
	that refers to free schools or additional schools, or whatever we want to call them. The fifth is
	"To enable the establishment of new schools."
	I do not know about my hon. Friends, but the Minister might need to tell us how the Government can reassure us on that. He has turned round and said, "Don't worry, the Building Schools for the Future money has nothing to do with free schools or additional schools." However, we then read in the terms of reference for the review group that the Department has established that two of the five criteria by which decisions on how to allocate capital funds are made refer to how capital funds are to be allocated to these new schools. Anybody looking at that would say, "What's going on there?"
	When we look at the criteria under the heading "Distribution of capital investment", we read the following:
	"To increase choice locally determined by parental demand".
	When we read more about the review, we see why amendment 70 is so important, especially as it talks about allocating capital money. At the moment, there will be no consultation with local parents, the local authority or anybody else about what will be done; it will just be the Secretary of State determining that a free school in an area would be a great thing to have. A few people will get together, write out a bit of an application-a few hundred words here, a few hundred words there-and then go the Secretary of State, who will say, "Oh, what a good idea! We'll set up the free school up." However, I would again like to share with hon. Members what the document that I have quoted says. I look at this with incredulity, especially after the great fanfare with which the Secretary of State made his announcement. In that document, the Secretary of State says:
	"To review and reform the requirements on schools including the building/School Premises Regulations".
	What that actually means is as follows-and this is why amendment 70 is so vital.
	When the Secretary of State and the Schools Minister talk to parents about establishing schools and so on, they should make things clear. Perhaps the Schools Minister's constituents are different from mine, but I do not get many parents coming to me and saying, "Can I be on the fifth floor of a tower block?", "Can I be in a disused Tesco?", or, "Those portakabins are pretty good-can I pop round there?" Most people I speak to want to get rid of the portakabins. However, the Secretary of State's vision of this new school world-this free school nirvana-is this: "It doesn't matter where you establish schools; it's fine."
	We all know-my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) often makes this point, and quite rightly so-that, at the end of the day, what really turns a school around is not its structure, and often not the buildings, but the quality of teaching and learning, and the quality of leadership. However, there is no one here who would not also point out to each and every one of us-there was a survey about this a couple of days ago-that the quality of school buildings is an essential part of who we, as a civilised society, provide the standard of education that we would want in our schools, for ourselves, our teachers and our children.
	When we came to power in 1997, the quality of school buildings in general across this country was, frankly, an absolute disgrace. Does that mean that we have reached the point now, in 2010, where every single school is at the standard and level of quality that we would want? No, it does not. But I can stand here as a proud member of the previous Government and say that our record on capital investment and school building transformation was second to none, and I am proud of that. People from Liverpool, the north-east and elsewhere in the country are talking to us about this Government's attack on the school building programme. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members will have the same problems. Even at this late stage, however, we hope that the attack on the programme can be reversed.
	The amendment proposes consultation with "local parents and children", and with "the relevant local authority", as well as any "other persons deemed appropriate". If those people were consulted and told that a free school was going to be built, other parents in the area might ask where it was going to be. They might well then be told, "Oh well, it's going to be in some disused building." To be fair to the Secretary of State and the Minister and the Schools Minister, I agree with some of the things they say and I would not castigate them for everything, but I think that this proposal is completely beyond the pale. I find it astonishing.
	These regulations are called "Reducing the burden on schools", but they should be called "Putting kids in substandard buildings". I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton is still here, because he and I have always taken a keen interest in these matters. At the end of the regulations, we find out that they deal with not only building school premises regulations and design requirements, but "playing field regulations". I cannot remember a time when Members on both sides of the House have not become incandescent about the selling off of school playing fields- [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) wants to intervene, that is fine.

Gordon Birtwistle: The Labour party was famous for selling off school playing fields. To return to Building Schools for the Future, the majority of those building programmes were carried out under private finance initiative schemes. They were never put on the Government's balance sheets. They are all off the capital account, and are being paid for out of the revenue of the next 25 years. So how can the hon. Gentleman say that he had the money for those programmes, when he did not know whether he would have that money over the next 25 years to pay the rent on the schools that he built?

Vernon Coaker: I have already answered the point about money for schools. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes round to the schools being built through PFI schemes and tells them, "We don't want you in here building a school through PFI." The programmes delivered through PFI, through local authority funding or through Building Schools for the Future have transformed the quality of school buildings, and over the next decade they would have transformed the whole of the secondary school estate, either through rebuilding or refurbishment. This is a choice that we have to make: the hon. Gentleman can oppose the programme, and that is absolutely fine. He can stand up and oppose it-

Gordon Birtwistle: rose -

Vernon Coaker: Not now! This is one of the good things about being in Committee-we can get excited and nobody really minds.
	The hon. Gentleman can oppose the Building Schools for the Future programme and say that what the Government have done over the past few years has been a waste of time, but I would say to him that we have a tremendous record and that Building Schools for the Future would have delivered that transformation.
	Returning to the point about playing fields, it was our Government who introduced regulations to ensure that there was agreement, including from sporting bodies, on any such land that was sold, and that the money was reinvested in the school. In one or two instances, I supported the sale of playing fields in my area when schools were being rebuilt with gyms and all-weather courts as a consequence of the money that was realised from the sale. Often, land that was labelled as playing fields was nothing more than waste ground. Numerous Members from across the country asked whether it would be possible to sell off such land as long as the money was reinvested in sports facilities in the local area. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Burnley would have supported the amendment because it would introduce consultation with local people, the local authority, parents and children on any activities where capital expenditure is moved to fund the free schools.
	However, my point is that tucked away inside "Reducing the burden on schools" is the fact that the capital review will cover not only school premises regulations and design requirements but also playing fields. Does the Minister therefore envisage some free schools being set up with no access to playing fields or other outdoor sports facilities? I have heard him quite rightly highlighting the essential role in the curriculum played by sport. How on earth is that to be delivered in the light of these regulations? I know that he will get up and say that they do not mean that at all, but I can tell him that that is exactly what they mean. This is exactly what the Secretary of State said when he was talking about capital moneys being made available for free schools. He wanted the schools to be able to be set up very quickly and cheaply, and that would involve changing the regulations that local authorities would normally have had to abide by. He wanted to reduce the central requirements so that a huge number of free schools could be set up as quickly as possible, funded by moving money from one departmental pot to another. Our amendment would ensure that that choice was made apparent to local people, and I know what their decision would be if they were asked those questions.

Mike Hancock: rose -

Geraint Davies: rose -

Vernon Coaker: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).

Mike Hancock: rose-

Vernon Coaker: Oh, okay, that's fine-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. This is an interesting and important debate, but it would help the Speaker and the  Hansard writers enormously if we knew who was rising and who the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was giving way to.

Vernon Coaker: I apologise. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West.

Geraint Davies: Given the Government's strategy for the use of disused sites, does my hon. Friend agree that there will now be a perverse incentive to let schools on valuable sites fail, so that they can sell off their land and use the funds to set up other schools in disused premises? Under Labour, certain schools on good sites had difficulties, but their infrastructure was supported. They might now be asset-stripped to pursue the new strategy involving free schools on disused sites.

Vernon Coaker: That is certainly a possibility. If we change the regulations, anything is possible. The Minister will no doubt say that that will not happen, but the thrust of our argument is our desire to place certain statutory requirements in the Bill to protect the quality of educational provision, including the provision of playing fields. Any weakening of the regulations or of the findings of the capital funding review could be very damaging.

Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. With your indulgence, Dawn-[Hon. Members: "Ooh!"] I have a problem saying your surname, because I have a problem with Ps and Rs. Sometimes when I have addressed you in Committee, it has disturbed the  Hansard writers. They wondered who the hell I was talking about. With your indulgence, I would like to make a couple of points. The first is about private finance initiatives in schools. Any local authority that has a PFI school building programme will know of the huge impediment that that brings, as well as the restrictions on developing anything in the school without enormous knock-on costs. I hope that no one is running away with the idea that everything about PFI is perfect, because that is far from the truth.
	My second point is the more important, however. I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but so far he has not raised the question of what happens if a local authority is forced into the invidious position of allocating certain resources from LEA funding, limited though it is, and one of the schools then fails. Who will pick up the pieces? Nothing in the Bill suggests the existence of a fail-safe system enabling those pieces to be put back together once the whole has been torn apart by the establishment of a free school.

Vernon Coaker: I was not trying to suggest that PFI was a panacea for all ills, and I know that it has sometimes led to problems. I was merely suggesting that it was one of the options that had allowed some local authorities to build new schools that might not have been built otherwise.
	I was going to deal with the question of what will happen if a school fails, but the hon. Gentleman has made the point well enough to save me the trouble of making it myself. I entirely agree with him. As we discovered yesterday, one of the main drawbacks of the Bill is the huge amount of detail that it contains. In relation to one clause, we were told not to worry because a committee-I cannot remember what it was called-would be set up to examine all the issues that had been raised, as the Government did not know the answers yet. We as a Parliament, however, are being asked to pass the Bill.
	Some of the problems with the Bill were illustrated very effectively by the comments of the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), and other Members will doubtless make similar comments later. Moreover-let me make this point again to the Schools Minister-we cannot amend it. We can table amendments, but for a number of reasons the Government do not want it to be amended.
	Does the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) wish to intervene?

David Ward: I am sorry. I was simply trying to catch Miss P's eye.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I do not think that my name is all that difficult to pronounce. It is Pri-mar-olo. "Dawn" or "Miss P" will not do, I am afraid. I call Mr Coaker.

Vernon Coaker: Thank you, Ms Primarolo.  [Laughter.]
	The Government are seeking to save money by cutting the Building Schools for the Future programme, but they say that this expenditure is nothing to do with those cuts. They say that they are economising on low-priority IT projects. That will provide £50 million, and they have already received 38 expressions of interest.
	I do not think any of us believe that that really adds up. The £50 million is only until March 2011, and because of the comprehensive spending review, no one has any idea what will happen after that. On 20 April 2010-apparently everything has changed since then, but I think it useful to draw attention to this- The Independent quoted the Secretary of State as saying:
	"The capital cost"-
	of new free schools, that is-
	"will come from reducing spending on the government's extremely wasteful Building Schools for the Future programme by 15 per cent."
	I know that when a party gets into power things change a little, but the Secretary of State cannot really have believed that there was not a budget for him to use if he wanted to fund his free school experiment. He did not say that last year; he said it on 20 April 2010.

Pat Glass: Is not one of the saddest aspects of the debate on Building Schools for the Future the fact that it is being portrayed as simply a capital programme? It was never intended to be that. It was intended to bring about a transformation of secondary education. It was intended to improve the curriculum, improve inclusion and raise standards. Nothing that I have seen suggests to me that that will happen as a result of the free school programme. The Bill is being pushed through the House at great speed, and we are being given no evidence or details.

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend made a number of valuable contributions yesterday, and she is absolutely right to remind us of those facts. As I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, Building Schools for the Future was not just about school buildings; it was about transforming opportunities for young people.
	I have visited some of the most run-down and socially disadvantaged areas in the country-as other Members on both sides of the Committee will have done, and as the Minister will no doubt be doing-and seen the transformation that can be created by the building of a new school, at a cost of perhaps £30 million. Local people have told me, "This is the first time for years that the state has invested any significant sums in our community." We tend to say, "Perhaps we can save a bit of money here and save a bit of money there", but the symbolism of those schools in those areas cannot possibly be underestimated. That, I think, is what my hon. Friend meant when she said that Building Schools for the Future was not just about buildings, but about transformation and improving opportunities and life chances.

Luciana Berger: The fact that 26 of our schools in Liverpool missed the boat and had their BSF projects cancelled was not due to the bureaucracy to which Government Members keep referring. A detailed reorganisation ensured that we now have the right number of schools for the right number of students in the right areas. We do not need any more schools in Liverpool, but we do need schools with suitable buildings in which young people can learn. It is an absolute disgrace that young people in Liverpool will miss out on those suitable premises on the whim of this untested, untrialled free school process on which there has been no consultation.
	May I ask my hon. Friend-

The Second Deputy Chairman: Briefly.

Luciana Berger: May I ask my hon. Friend, very briefly, whether he agrees with what was said the other day by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)? The hon. Gentleman said:
	"It would be a nonsense to take money that could be used for improving existing schools to create new schools where, on the ground, the will of the local community is for the existing schools to continue."

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the devastating impact of the cuts in the Building Schools for the Future programme on Liverpool, although, of course, it can be seen throughout the country. She is also right to draw attention to the comments of the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, who asked why money should be withheld from perfectly adequate existing schools to create new schools. That is a question that the Minister responsible for schools will have to answer.

Gavin Shuker: The budgets of three schools in my constituency-among others-have been cut: Stopsley, Putteridge and Denbigh. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not just of new school buildings, but of capacity? In the Luton local authority area, 11 new schools have been cancelled-and, unlike the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), my constituency does need more schools. Is not the free schools policy a perfect storm for areas such as mine which need new capacity? The building of free schools is the only option for us now.

Vernon Coaker: That is exactly the point. If free schools are to be built, the money must be found somewhere, and the Government are struggling at the moment. They have raised £50 million by scrapping a few computer projects, which were described as low-capacity but would have been important to the people who would have benefited from them, but where will the money come from after that?
	A week or two before the election, the Secretary of State said that funding the free schools programme would require cuts of 15% in the Building Schools for the Future programme. That is a direct quotation. It has not been corrected, and I have not heard it claimed that it was taken out of context. As I have said, that is really where the money will come from.
	I am trying to be helpful to the Government and the Committee. We oppose the Bill, but we recognise that the Government will probably push it through. Even if that is the case, however, the whole point of the Committee stage is to try to improve the Bill by amending it, and to raise issues of great importance. That is why it is so disappointing that Members-on both sides of the Committee-cannot amend the Bill. I recognise that the Bill has come from the Lords, but it is astonishing that we will have spent three days debating it on the Floor of the House and not one amendment will have been allowed. I am not a political or legislative historian, but I cannot imagine that many other Bills can have spent three days on the Floor of the House without amendment. I say in all honesty to the Minister that I will not be surprised if we find sneaked into the Bill that will be coming in the autumn a couple of little measures tweaking and putting right one or two things in this Bill, because that is what usually happens when Governments rush through legislation-afterwards they think, "Oh dear, there is a problem."

Nick Gibb: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are 75 amendments and five new clauses on the amendment paper, and the Committee is perfectly entitled to pass any of them.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman and I have debated other Bills-indeed, we have served on Bill Committees together-and on those occasions he has made one or two good points to which I have said, "That's quite a good point, and I'll come back to it on Report," and then a Government amendment is introduced. That is the usual process in the House, and when it happens everyone tells this joke: "If it was such a good amendment and the Government have come back with their version of exactly the same proposal, why did you not accept it when it was moved by the Opposition?"
	The situation with this Bill is totally different from how the Minister has just described it. Not all the amendments on the amendment paper are in my name-some have been tabled by his hon. Friends, and comments have been made by other Members as well-but we are totally unable to amend the Bill. Let me say to any new Members on the Government Benches who might be tempted to strike out in a spirit of independence by organising to make a change to the Bill through proposing an amendment and seeking to press it to a Division that it would not be very long before those who traditionally sit on the far end of the Treasury Bench came to see them to explain that that was probably not the best thing to do. I just say in all honesty to the Minister that I think it is deeply disappointing that we cannot amend the Bill in the way that many of us would want.

George Mudie: I understand my hon. Friend's surprise, but the Government have form on this. We have just completed our debates on the Finance Bill, all of which were taken on the Floor of the House, which never happens, and not one amendment was accepted-although, to respond to what the Minister has just said, there were many proposed amendments to the Finance Bill as well. There are two major Bills, therefore, that did not go upstairs to Committee for detailed scrutiny and to which not one amendment was made, because the Government are determined to steamroller both through the House.

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I was going to say that what is happening in respect of the Academies Bill is a one-off, but he has pointed out that this happened in respect of the Finance Bill as well. One would hope, however, that it is not a precedent of how other Bills will be dealt with.
	I have tabled amendment 70 in order to try to be helpful. The amendment does not say that no capital moneys can be paid to free schools. In fact, it says capital moneys can be paid to free schools, but before that money is paid there has to be the agreement of "local parents and children", the "local authority" and
	"any other persons deemed appropriate."
	I thought that we were all in favour of the new localism and local decision making, and the point of the amendment is to allow the local people and communities along with the local authority to determine whether the capital moneys proposed to be used to set up a free school-that will be agreed by the Secretary of State-should be spent in that way, when it might have been used for the benefit of other schools in, for example, Liverpool, Halton and Luton.
	I am trying to be helpful to the Government, therefore. I am saying to the Government, "You establish the free schools-the 'additional schools' as the Bill calls them-but if you're going to take capital moneys away from other schools in the community to establish the free schools, then let's see whether the local people and the local authority agree." Given the furore we have seen over the cuts to Building Schools for the Future, with communities throughout the country seeing their new school buildings taken away from them, I wonder what they would say when asked whether they would wish to see their new school buildings sacrificed on the altar of a school experiment that is unproven and supported by no evidence one way or the other. I know why the Government will not accept this amendment, therefore: because they would be frightened of the answer they would get from local communities, who would turn around and say, "We want capital moneys spent for the benefit of the whole community, not for the benefit of a few."
	I have some questions linked to the amendment for the Minister. How many free schools does he expect there will be? How much money does he expect to spend on each free school? What do the changes in the review of capital expenditure actually mean? Are there going to be any regulations or are we going to allow children to go on the 13th floor, let us say? I note that the head of Tesco property offices is one of the advisers to the capital review group, and we will see what happens there. Can the Minister confirm that he expects the first free schools to open in 2011? Does he expect to spend all of the £50 million? Does he expect that to be enough money to develop the 38 schools in September 2011?
	While we are talking about Building Schools for the Future, may I also ask the Minister to confirm how many academies have been affected by the BSF cuts? Looking at the list, it appears that while many local authority-maintained schools have had their BSF money stopped, lots of the academies are listed as under review. Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain to us exactly what is happening in that regard?
	How much does the Minister expect the free schools to cost not only over the next six months or year, but over the next five years? How much money will the Department for Education be trying to get from the Treasury in the next spending review? What evidence does he have that the moneys to be invested in free schools is a policy worth pursuing and that it is worth taking money from the vast majority of schools to fund what I regard as an educational experiment?
	We look forward to hearing the Minister's response, and the comments of other Members who may also want to contribute to this important debate. At the heart of the debate on all the amendments, including amendment 70, is the fact that there are those of us who wish to try to ensure that opportunity and excellence for all is made a reality in every single community. There is a difference between the Government and the Opposition on this. Sometimes we are characterised as wanting to pull down those who can excel. Far from it: we want all children to achieve, including those who have talents and ability. We want all children to have school buildings of which they can be proud. The amendment before us seeks to ensure that, where the Government want to divert capital moneys from one set of priorities to another, that is done on the basis of local support-the support of local parents and the local authority-and not done at the whim of the Secretary of State.

David Ward: May I say how much I, as a new boy, have enjoyed the Committee stage and how useful I have found it as a mechanism for at least asking questions and trying to clarify points? Yesterday's proceedings were long, but very useful to me in trying to understand how this process works.
	There is value in this amendment. It is always important to spend public money as wisely as we possibly can. There will be disputes about policy initiatives and priorities, but whatever the priority, we need always to get the best value for the money we spend. If that was ever important, it certainly is now. In the spirit of the Committee, I shall not go into why we are in the difficulties that we are in, but most people accept that we are in a time of great austerity where we face cuts, tax increases and spending decisions that require careful thought.
	Priorities are the real issue, and they are well highlighted in the amendment. We have a good opportunity to find out where hon. Members' priorities lie. It is very difficult for some to hold the line on the Building Schools for the Future programme, although not in terms of reviewing the BSF process. Many of us have been critical of that process for a long time because of its bureaucracy and value-for-money elements. It is useful to consider that this is an existing proposal, because although we have been told by the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), that the BSF parrot is very definitely dead, we have also been assured that the investment in school buildings is not. One of the purposes of the BSF review is to examine where we can still spend money, although probably in a better way. That issue touches many hon. Members from all parts of the House, because we have local schools that are caught up in the BSF programme and whose funding has been frozen.
	We cannot have everything that we want in life, particularly when times are hard, so the question becomes one of what we actually spend and the priorities we make. The amendment proposes that a new subsection (1B) to clause 2 should state:
	"The purpose of the consultation...shall be to establish whether there are outstanding requirements for capital investment for existing schools".
	I know of 19 schools in the Bradford district that are part of the BSF programme and have outstanding requirements, six of which are located in my constituency. Two of those are special schools that most certainly have outstanding requirements for capital investment. I am using the amendment to find an answer to the question: where do the priorities lie?
	In a recent interview with "Channel 4 News" the Secretary of State said:
	"We're allocating £50 million of capital over the next year".
	It came as somewhat of a shock to me that at this time of austerity, when we are rejecting many other worthwhile proposals, such as the extension of free school meals, because we have not got any money, all of sudden £50 million could be conjured up to support an initiative. He went on to say that that allocation would be
	"up to April of next year, in order to help get some projects off the ground".
	The crucial bit came when he went on to say:
	"And then in the future this will be, obviously, a priority for our capital expenditure."
	That relates to my question. We may not be able to afford all the projects that are included within the BSF programme, and we need to carry out the review, but where do the schools involved in that programme stand in the pecking order against this proposal to put new money into the new schools that are being created? We have had the debate on the principles, the philosophy and the ideology of this thing, so this thing is likely to happen. This is not simply about rushing through legislation, but about its implementation. Where does the funding for these particular proposals stand in relation to the huge expectation and demand that has been created by the BSF programme? Where does it come in the pecking order?
	That will be crucial when we have to go back to schools at the end of the review and say, "I am sorry. We carried out the review and we have not got any money for you." How will they receive that response if, at the same time, we are investing in other schools-in new schools that are being opened? Such schools may be in areas with surplus places-in other words, there may not be a demand for a new school. The value of the amendment is that it allows us to discuss our priorities and where this particular initiative stands in that list of priorities.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) will recall that we both made our maiden speeches on Labour's flagship Bill in 1997. He will also recall the optimism that existed in the country then for education and for the incoming Government. How different the mood is today. My constituency, which has been devastated -[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) might laugh, but he is laughing at the fact that 11 schools have been taken out of the project, with three under review, and at the impact that that has had on more than 7,000 children in my constituency. Frankly, I say to him that this is no laughing matter and I shall ensure that my constituents understand that the coalition thinks that it is.
	As the shadow Minister said, what has happened in constituencies such as mine has resulted in absolute devastation. The amendment is very interesting because it allows us to discuss the capital programme and how we should see that in relation to what has happened to the BSF programme and how we spend capital in the future. What is also interesting is that this Government are having a review of capital expenditure, yet they are pressing ahead with the Bill. Both have an impact on each other, so this is a remarkable situation.
	Let me deal with what is being done and what is being spent. In yesterday's Westminster Hall debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Education talked about lavish expenditure on schools. I think that our schools deserve lavish expenditure. When he tried to say that somehow this was inefficient, I pointed out to him that last year's National Audit Office report said that the cost of BSF schools was no more than any other programme and, in fact, was cheaper than the original academies that were built. It is not the case that these schools were in any way inefficient or that the money was not available.

Mike Hancock: rose-

Derek Twigg: I will certainly give way to a member of the coalition.

Mike Hancock: I am slightly curious about the hon. Gentleman's comment that our schools deserve lavish expenditure. What on earth was going on during the past 13 years, when so many schools were allowed to be neglected and none of the resources that were needed were coming from the Government?

Derek Twigg: I am surprised at that intervention, although I suppose I should not be. In the past 13 years, £24 million has been spent on schools in Halton. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one example. Ditton primary school waited years for a new school building, and once Labour came into power it got one built. A number of schools have had major building programmes and major improvements made, so it is not the case-it is plain incorrect-to say that Labour did nothing until the BSF programme. In fact, significantly more was done under Labour than was done in 18 years of a Tory Government. His party now supports such a Government.

Pat Glass: I am sure that I am not the only person in the House who worked in education during the time of the previous Tory Government. I remember what it was like in those school buildings, where I was putting out buckets in the hall when it rained and excluding children from the hall because it was dangerous. I said that BSF is not about a capital building programme-it is a transformation programme. Our school buildings say what we think about our young people. To have children in office blocks, disused buildings and old schools-

Martin Caton: Order. I have been indulgent, but interventions should be a lot shorter than that.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I shall come to when I ask the Minister how his handling of the amendment will affect that specific point, which is very important.
	I am not sure how the Bill or, to some extent, the amendment will address the problem of school places and provision. The cancelling of the BSF project caused major problems for schools such as St Chad's Roman Catholic school and the Heath specialist technology college in Runcorn in my constituency, which were going to expand. How will they now expand? They are popular and successful schools that have seen increases in their GCSE results-the Heath had a success rate of more than 82% last year. Problems were also caused for the likes of Bankfield in Widnes, which is my old school and has been told this week that it has an outstanding report from Ofsted. How can that school expand?
	Wade Deacon school has a 100% pass rate in GCSEs at A to C and serves both an affluent area and a disadvantaged area. The previous school, Fairfield, is now being closed down and will amalgamate with Wade Deacon. They were going to be built on one site. How will that happen now? It will mean a split site and all sorts of difficulties, with 400 pupils displaced. That is the consequence.
	I am not sure how the Bill and this clause will help the situation in my constituency, and that is a consequence of the decision that the Government took. This amendment is about ensuring that parents and the LEAs views are known and taken into account. Parents and LEAs will take account of the sorts of buildings that schools need, and that was what BSF was delivering. They were consulted on the buildings, they had a lot of say, and the buildings were designed to suit the ethos of the school and what it wanted to deliver. In particular, they were designed to suit other parts of the community's involvement in them.

Toby Perkins: Just last week, I was able to visit Springwell community school, a school that is being rebuilt in Staveley in Chesterfield, which is quite a deprived area that, at one time, had terrible problems. On 1 November, it expects to receive the keys to its new Building Schools for the Future school and all involved are incredibly excited about the facilities that they have there. I have been around the new facilities and they are not in any way lavish, but they will be taking delivery of a high-quality establishment. What was important to me was that they said that the whole BSF programme enabled them to reassess not just what buildings they wanted, but the whole way they did education. Is that something that my hon. Friend has found? The BSF process was about much more than just getting buildings up.

Martin Caton: I call Stephen Twigg.

Derek Twigg: Derek, even, Mr Caton. I am happy to be associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), but I must say that we are not from the same branch.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) makes an important point, as he has before. For instance, all the schools discussed with other bodies in the area, such as the health authority, how they could improve the provision of health care and how community involvement could be increased. In areas such as mine, although we have seen significant improvements in education over the past 10 years, the average school gets more than a 72% pass mark at grades A to C, which is above the national average. For a borough that is the 30th most deprived in the country, that is some achievement, which has been given no recognition by the Government in the Bill. That has been an important part of the process. Getting the community involved and getting adults involved to improve the educational ethos and get parents and families to take an interest in their young people-many do, but many more need to-was an important part of the involvement with the schools, too.
	Health is particularly important in Halton because we have some of the worst health problems in the country. We have the highest teenage pregnancy rates. That would have been an important part of the programme. These schools were not just educational establishments; they were community establishments that would have dealt with some of the problems that affect the communities in their localities. How will the Government deal with that through this Bill?
	The important part of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is that, if we are for localism and getting people and communities to make their own decisions, why would the Government object to local parents and children, the relevant local authority and other appropriate persons being involved before decisions are made? That was exactly what BSF did. Why would the Government object to that? The amendment seems perfectly reasonable.
	Parents and communities as a whole can best make a judgment about whether what has been delivered under BSF could be delivered under this Bill and this clause. I am interested to hear the Minister's explanation, because parents will not be consulted in the same way, and neither will schools or LEAs. How is that an improvement on what was there previously?
	The Government seem to suggest that standards were falling. They should come to Halton. I know that the Minister is very thoughtful. Why not visit my constituency and see some of the problems on the ground? He could see the inability to expand unless we put in mobile classrooms, the problems with amalgamations, and the problems with special schools that would have been placed in the same buildings as secondary schools, offering a more inclusive education. I know that he is a big Simon and Garfunkel fan, so while he is there he can visit Widnes station, where Paul Simon composed "Homeward Bound" and see the plaque next to my plaque at that station. I offer that invitation to him.
	In seriousness, I cannot describe in words the devastation caused by this decision. I have mentioned lots of schools, but not St Peter and St Paul, a very important Roman Catholic comprehensive school in my constituency, or the primary schools on which these decisions have an impact. The consequences are devastating and the amendment, although it is not perfect and will not get us all the way to where some of us want to be, is a message to the Government and gives them the opportunity to roll back a bit and to consult on BSF, which they should have done in the first place, and to think again about how they approach the system of school improvement and ensuring that we have capital invested in our buildings.
	Let me finish with this point, which I raised before. The Secretary of State said on his website that schools would get "more money". How will that happen when the Government are saying that the money is not there for BSF in the first place? Those schools that follow his line will get more money and the rest will be left with none.

Dan Rogerson: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Caton, as we debate in a little more detail the Government's proposals on additional school provision. I have made it clear, both yesterday and in earlier debates, my position of being sceptical-

Ben Wallace: Is that a personal view?

Dan Rogerson: Personally-yes, absolutely-I am sceptical about this sort of additional provision. However, the coalition agreement sets out our intention to explore avenues to make these opportunities available to communities where there is demonstrable demand for them. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he has received proposals from people in certain areas of the country who want to explore this idea and move forward, so it is sensible to make provision to do that.
	Yesterday, I asked for clarification whether, in areas where such schools are to be brought into existence, the facilities will be of a high enough standard that any young people enrolled in those institutions will have the same sort of protections as other young people. I hope that any providers that wish to enter the market will make sure that, as far as possible, they provide sufficient resources for that rather than seeking to draw down moneys that might otherwise have gone elsewhere. That is the sort of provision that people might expect.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) has laid out some of the political realities of the situation and the difficulties that some have in understanding where the money might come from in the current situation. Given some of the comments and remarks that Opposition Members have been making, one would have thought that everything was perfect under the previous Government and that everyone was getting all the resources they wanted in both capital and revenue terms. The school funding in my constituency was about £300 or so below the national average, so people there feel strongly that they have not had those resources. I expect that you will rule me out of order, Mr Caton, if I continue down that line, but it is important to get on the record that although some hon. Members might have experienced huge investment in their constituencies and although I welcome the fact that the Government put resources in when the money was available to do so, that money did not reach all people and not everyone was satisfied with the deal they had.

Toby Perkins: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments because we in Derbyshire are also campaigning for more funding for our schools. He says that north Cornwall did not benefit from Labour's investment; is he saying that education funding has not increased dramatically in north Cornwall in the past 13 years?

Dan Rogerson: I am talking about the funding formula. As we have been talking about different parts of the country benefiting in different ways, I thought it important to get on the record that my students were disadvantaged by that formula.
	The amendment is useful in that it has prompted a discussion on these issues, but there are problems with it. I note in passing the phrase in proposed subsection (1A)(c):
	"any other persons deemed appropriate."
	In yesterday's debate, the Opposition argued that it was not sufficient to deem people appropriate and that the list should have been much longer, and included staff, for example, so a little inconsistency is apparent.
	Putting that point aside, the problem with the amendment is that it is a little vague. Essentially, it relates to situations in which anyone in the local community might think that their school needs a bit more investment for a project, but no level of investment is specified. I can see how the amendment could kick in when a school has been identified by Ofsted and everyone else as needing drastic investment, but it talks about
	"whether there are outstanding requirements for capital investment".
	Presumably, the consultation would leave it up to those who responded to a request to define what they deem to be "outstanding requirements", so the amendment would effectively mean that if anyone said, "We want a bit more in our existing school for this", no money would be provided. The amendment is intended to toughen up the criteria governing such requests, and I am tempted by that, but it is flawed because, in practice, it would act as a block.
	I am sympathetic to some of the issues that have been raised, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them and clarify how local people may be reassured that the Government's proposed capital programme will meet as many demands for improvements to existing schools as possible.

Ian Mearns: I want to support the amendment and I am concerned about the implications of the Bill on the review of expenditure on capital programmes into the future. In my borough, five Building Schools for the Future secondary school projects have been cancelled very recently. The first one that I want to talk about is the proposed amalgamation between two schools, Ryton and Hookergate, which are on the western fringe of the borough and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). That proposed merger was the result of prolonged negotiations regarding those two schools, and the cancellation is a matter of grave concern.
	Hookergate-a school that has long served the communities of Chopwell, Rowlands Gill, High Spen and Greenside, as well as many smaller, isolated rural settlements-is sadly subject to a declining pupil population, and it was set to be amalgamated with a school a few miles to the north, in the town of Ryton, on a site that the local authority was negotiating for with several landowners in the area.
	Ryton school serves a very broad catchment area, including Ryton and Crawcrook. It also serves communities on the western fringe of Blaydon such as Stella, and the areas of Clara Vale, Stargate and Emmaville. Indeed, the formal part of the consultation on the local authority's proposal for amalgamation was due to start the day after the Secretary of State made the announcement in the House cancelling the programme.
	Another school affected by the cuts proposal is Whickham comprehensive, a large, successful school with some 1,500 pupils in the town of Whickham. It serves surrounding villages such as Marley Hill, Byermoor and Sunniside. It is very popular, but it is in grave need of renewal, as it is in a 1960s CLASP-style building, CLASP being the consortium of local authorities special programme. It is also bursting at the seams, having suffered a fire in one of its blocks several years ago.
	St Thomas More Catholic comprehensive school is very popular and successful, with high levels of academic achievement, despite the poor and cramped conditions on its site. The Joseph Swan school, named after the inventor of the incandescent light bulb, who lived in Low Fell in Gateshead, is a successful school serving the community of central Gateshead and Low Fell, where there are three Liberal Democrat councillors. It was to have its dining block and humanities area rebuilt, on the back of the highly successful rebuild of the school's main body through the traditional capital programme of the late 1990s.
	Government Members have criticised us for not investing enough in schools during the 13-year tenure of the Labour Government. In my borough, we had the five schools that I mentioned left to do, but Lord Lawson of Beamish school was rebuilt using the private finance initiative; Kingsmeadow comprehensive was completely rebuilt using PFI; and the Heworth Grange and Thomas Hepburn schools are at the on-site stage. I have to declare an interest: I am still nominally the chair of governors of Thomas Hepburn school. The steelwork is now being erected so that the school can be rebuilt. Numerous primary schools were rebuilt or refurbished through combinations of old-style capital spend and PFI.
	The £80 million that was due to come to us as part of Building Schools for the Future included the opportunity to adapt four schools to ensure that they were able to offer inclusive education for children with special needs, where it was the choice of parents to include youngsters with SEN in mainstream schooling. That was part of the transformational aspect of BSF to which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) referred. That additional SEN money that BSF talked to us about recognised the SEN review in our borough, and our ability to deliver; we could generate, according to the ready reckoner, approximately £10 million to invest in special schools, thereby completing our secondary school investment programme.
	In Gateshead, we have built the angel of the north, a millennium bridge, and the Sage Gateshead concert hall and music complex, at which many Members from across the House have attended conferences. We have completed many capital projects, but what I am most proud of is the improvements in education for the children of our borough, and I hate the prospect of that improvement coming to a halt.
	When the Secretary of State announced the axing of BSF, and when hon. Friends and I first raised the issue, Government Members accused us of feigning anger and outrage. After 27 years as a local councillor in Gateshead, and after a decade as the lead member on education serving the Gateshead community, I can reassure all Members of the House that I am not feigning anything. In particular, there is no pretence in my profound sadness that the much-needed continued investment in schools in my borough has been snatched away from the children who we all seek to serve.
	I welcome the undertaking given by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday to meet the borough's MPs and discuss this issue. I hope that at that meeting he will reassure us that the Building Schools for the Future programme for Gateshead has a future and has not been sacrificed on the ideological altar of investment in academy school buildings or new free schools for other, more favoured parts of the country.
	In that vein, I was struck by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, on the BBC last week that he would use his influence to lobby on behalf of places such as Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle-all places where the Liberal Democrats have had a significant foothold in local government representation. I hope that the Government will demonstrate transparency and that such decisions on school funding are made on the basis of fair criteria rather than behind-the-scenes deals.

Martin Caton: I call Mike Hancock.  [Interruption.] Mike Hancock?

Mike Hancock: I am sorry, Mr Caton; I was rather taken aback. It must be something to do with men with beards.
	I hope that the amendment is pushed to a vote because I, for one, will support it, and for a number of reasons. First, however, I shall address some of the comments made by Labour Members. In the past 13 years, one or two Bills went through the House for which no amendments were taken.
	The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the former Minister, said that the futures of Conservative and Lib Dem Members who tabled amendments might be harmed because people with the position in this Government that the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) held in the last Government would be emotionally attached to them for some time, trying to persuade them not to do it. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Leeds East made an intervention on that point; I could see a smirk on his face that broke out into a full grin. It brought back those lovely moments when he was able to exercise his persuasive powers; Members might have weakened, taken the advice of the Labour Front Benchers and tabled amendments.
	I say to my coalition colleagues, particularly those in the Cabinet, how sad it is that these two debates have been so intertwined and what a mistake it was to link the Building Schools for the Future fiasco and its associated problems with an idea that might have got greater support if the two issues had been divorced. Nearly every contribution during yesterday's and today's debates has linked both issues.

John Pugh: Earlier, I was listening carefully to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who suggested that a school could not henceforth get capital funding unless it was prepared to be an academy. Under the last Government, it was known that if the local authority was not interested in having an academy, there would not be much in the way of BSF funding. The issues have always been connected, by both parties.

Mike Hancock: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is strange how things can change and memories can lapse in a short time. I am disappointed that Labour Members have not been more forthright in apologising. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) suggested that we were laughing at what he was saying, but that could not have been further from the truth. Certainly nobody on these Benches was laughing; we were nearly in tears over what was happening.

Derek Twigg: It was the Member sitting behind the hon. Gentleman who was laughing, but he has now left the Chamber.

Mike Hancock: If any Member laughed, I would be angry. I feel that in the past 13 years we have wasted opportunity after opportunity. Like the hon. Gentleman, I was full of enthusiasm when we heard the words "Education, education, education" coming from No. 10 -not once, but umpteen times. What did that really mean? Why did it all go so manifestly wrong? Why were schools in my constituency that were desperately in need of help not given it? Why did the city council go cap in hand to Ministers on three occasions begging for the resources to build a new King Richard school-not in my constituency but in that of the then Labour Minister? It was not given the resources that the school desperately needed.
	I am sad that this debate is intertwined with the awfulness over what has happened to our schools as regards Building Schools for the Future. I agree with the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and others who have spoken that this is not just about the quality of education. Schools provide a cocktail for children. As well as a good education, they provide a safe haven and a structure and buildings which give a community a sense of being. That is particularly true of large comprehensives. I have comprehensives in my city with close to 2,000 children in some of the most densely populated areas of Europe, let alone Great Britain. A school is seen very much as a focal point and an important aspect of community life, and it is very sad not to have the resources to rekindle its ability to serve several more generations.
	The amendment is correct because it does more than probe. It spells out the inadequacies of the Bill, which does not talk about failure, but about taking resources from other areas. It presents a threat. If the idea of free schools gets off the ground, then fine-if that is what people want, let people choose to have it. I do not support it, and I cannot believe I ever will. However, I do not want to see resources taken from the schools I represent, which are desperately in need of new buildings and more equipment. I do not want those kids or those parents to be persuaded to go to a school that will not have science labs or outside space, and will not allow children to develop to their full potential. There is nothing in the Bill that says a free school will have to ensure that every child who goes there will have every opportunity to fulfil their potential in whatever direction they want to go in educational terms. That is a fundamental failure of the Bill.
	I admire the Secretary of State enormously for his gung-ho approach to things. It was long overdue that we had Ministers who were prepared to fight their corner in the way that he does. Even when he is wrong, he comes out fighting. He is prepared to take a few blows, but he also likes to deliver a couple back. His deputy Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), has done an excellent job on this Bill, despite the fact that he must understand, like many of us, that the extreme frustrations felt in this House are mirrored a million times over around the country. There is a lot of uncertainty in the education family, whether teachers, governors or whoever, about where the proposals will lead. In many ways, it is a mistake. That is why I will be supporting the amendment, which I commend to the whole Committee.

Stephen Twigg: I strongly echo the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), and I welcome the amendment.
	The Government's announcements on Building Schools for the Future and the progress of this Bill, which have happened roughly at the same time, are very much related to each other. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said, Building Schools for the Future was not just about new buildings- it was about school improvement and educational transformation. I understand that that is the Government's thinking on the Bill.
	These developments are having significant impacts in schools in communities up and down the country. On Second Reading, I mentioned three examples of schools in my constituency in Liverpool. De La Salle Catholic boys' school in Croxteth, an outstanding school that was due to become an academy under the Building Schools for the Future programme, now does not know whether it is going to get the extra investment, which it desperately needs. Another school, St John Bosco, also in Croxteth, and also an outstanding school that was due to be rebuilt under Building Schools for the Future, also needs that investment. Last weekend the head teacher asked me, "Should we now apply for academy status?" That is not because those at the school have a new plan in addition to their previous plans on educational transformation, but simply because they think that might be the way to secure the extra investment that they were going to get under Building Schools for the Future.

Dan Rogerson: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that there were people who thought exactly the same when the previous Government were in office? There were conversations such as that. I know that the current Government will be listening closely to what he says, and I am sure they will want to underline the fact that there will be a wider capital programme but, as other Members have said, what the hon. Gentleman describes was surely sometimes the perception under the last Government.

Stephen Twigg: The difference on this occasion is that the schools affected have worked for years on a programme for their own improvement, and they came together in Building Schools for the Future. Now that has all been stopped, except for schools that will potentially have academy status. The problem is the uncertainty. I want schools to make the decisions that are best for them. The head of De La Salle wants his school to be an academy and sees the educational advantages, whereas the head teacher and chair of governors of Holly Lodge, another school that was due to be rebuilt under Building Schools for the Future, have decided that they do not want that for their school. I do not want schools to make such decisions simply on the basis of whether the extra money is available.
	I wish briefly to make a point about where we go from here. Although there is a real sense of loss and devastation in Liverpool that we are not getting Building Schools for the Future funding, there is also a hard-headed pragmatism. We recognise that there will be a new show in town, and we are starting to consider what the alternatives might be for securing the much-needed capital funding for the city.

Graham Stuart: Is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding that Building Schools for the Future would have carried on precisely as originally envisaged had Labour been in power, and that the 50% reduction in capital spending that the last Government had pencilled in, in broad terms and with no details given, would not have had an impact on it?

Stephen Twigg: That is absolutely my understanding, and the figures that the Department for Children, Schools and Families gave under the previous Government were those signed off by the Treasury.

John Pugh: rose-

Stephen Twigg: I am being tempted to take a lot of interventions, but I understand that Members of all parties may want an early vote because they need to be somewhere else a little later this afternoon. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this will be the final intervention that I take.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman is not naturally credulous, but did he not see what happened to Building Colleges for the Future under the last Government? Why does he think anything different would have happened with Building Schools for the Future?

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman ought to see that the answer to his question has been given in the debate. The Government are already indicating that there will be extra money for free schools. They could have said, "We don't think Building Schools for the Future can be afforded, so we're going to do this in a different way over a longer period." They could have gone ahead in the form that we had proposed, but spread over a longer time. That would have meant that the type of work that we had done in Liverpool, and that had been done in Durham and elsewhere, would not have been wasted, and we could have moved forward on that basis.
	I was making a point about where we can go next. It would be useful if the Minister could inform the Committee of what the key factors will be when the capital review team considers the criteria for schools such as Holly Lodge, St John Bosco and De La Salle in my constituency. Will it be to the advantage of a school if it is willing to seek academy status? Will deprivation be a factor in whether a school is given priority, and will educational improvement be a significant factor, as it was under BSF? Will the Government consider links to the wider economic policy in a region? If Liverpool is to get the private sector growth that is crucial to our economic future, we need investment in our education. Will the capital review team consider that factor?
	I urge the Committee to support this sensible amendment, which would enable local voices to be heard as important decisions are taken about the spending of large amounts of public money.

Nick Gibb: The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local parents and children, local authorities and others before making payments in respect of capital funding for any additional free school.
	We have been clear that we want to improve choice in education. A free school proposal will be required to demonstrate parental demand and support, and where there is such demand for a free school in an area, we will not turn down a proposal simply to protect other local schools. However, I reassure hon. Members who are concerned that money from BSF will be used to fund free schools that that is not the case. We have reallocated £50 million from the harnessing technology fund to restart the standards and diversity fund established by the previous Government in 2008 to promote new schools. That fund will provide capital funding for free schools until the end of next March. Any free school projects that require up-front capital outlay will have to demonstrate a compelling and strong value-for-money case to support the investment and provide evidence of genuine parental demand.
	Let me deal briefly with some of the issues that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) raised. He asked how many expressions of interest had been shown in new free schools. We have not announced figures for free school applications or expressions of interest, although the New Schools Network has done so, but we have made it clear that all proposals for free schools will be published on our website.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the terms of reference for the capital review, which are there for all to see on the departmental website. I shall read briefly the review's opening purpose. It is:
	"To review... the department's existing capital expenditure and make recommendations on the future delivery models for capital investment for 2011-12 onwards.
	The overall aim of the review is to ensure that future capital investment represents good value for money and strongly supports the Government's ambitions to reduce the deficit, raise standards and tackle disadvantage."
	The hon. Gentleman cited two of the five bullet points. The other three are:
	"To evaluate the extent to which value for money has been achieved in capital expenditure to date... To review current methods of allocating capital (for example, by formula to local authorities)... To consider options for reflecting Government policies on carbon reduction".
	As the hon. Gentleman said, the other two are to bring in new providers and to establish new schools.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about new capacity. When local authorities need to expand primary schools to accommodate demographic changes, the capital will, of course, be funded in the normal way for such basic need. He asked about the criticism of the shadow Secretary of State's stewardship of the Department's finances. We have had to deal with unrealistic and unfunded spending commitments for 2010-11, for which funding relied on under-spends through the end-year flexibility system.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about playing fields. We are committed to competitive sports and our new free schools will have to show that they can provide a broad and balanced curriculum and that pupils will have access to playing fields and appropriate facilities. He asked about academies' capital funding. Funding that has been itemised is currently being discussed with sponsors, and the results will be announced before the recess.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) asked what would happen if a free school failed. We would look to support a school to try to prevent its failure. The model funding agreement has intervention powers, which would allow the Secretary of State to appoint a majority of governors to the governing body of the academy. They would look to turn around the school or terminate the funding agreement and enter into a new one.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) asked about the priorities for capital spending. That is exactly what the capital review is designed to investigate. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) asked about school funding. We have been clear about the principle that academies are funded at a level that is broadly comparable to that of maintained schools in the local authority area, taking account of their additional responsibilities. We will review the future funding of academies later this year, in consultation with partners, to ensure that local authorities and academies are properly funded for their respective responsibilities. Of course, capital will be the subject of the review, the terms of reference of which I have just read out.
	I remind the hon. Member for Gedling that clauses 9 and 10 deal with consultation and the impact of the proposals on neighbouring schools. With those few words, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Vernon Coaker: I will be very brief, because I know that other things are taking place this afternoon. I will press amendment 70 to a Division to test the Committee's opinion, and I thank those who have contributed to the debate on it, including my hon. Friends the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). The Minister will know that it is not just my hon. Friends and I who believe in the necessity for more local consultation on the Department's capital spending priorities, because we also heard the concerns of the hon. Members for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) about the Government's proposals.
	Amendment 70 seeks only to allow local people to determine their priorities for the spending of capital moneys. As I said, the new politics and the new Government were supposed to be about localism, but at one of the very first hurdles they have come to, they are clearly failing that test.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 185, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.

Ann McKechin: On a point of order, Mr Caton. I would like to raise a question that I have raised already with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The issue concerns the London living allowance and the fact that it would appear to be impossible to backdate any claim from the date of election to the date when a Member can first log on to the system. I am still awaiting a response from IPSA and seek your guidance, Mr Caton.

Martin Caton: That is not a point of order, and the Committee needs to proceed. However, the hon. Lady might like to raise it with the Speaker.

Charles Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr Caton.

Martin Caton: I have just ruled that it is not a point of order.

Charles Walker: My name was mentioned in the Chamber, Mr Caton. I would like to apologise to the hon. Lady and the House for the misinformation that I provided in that answer. I am trying to get at the right information, but that is no excuse for my behaviour in providing the wrong information. I apologise to you, as the Chair, and the House for what I believe is misleading the House.

Martin Caton: That was very helpful, but I really would like to get on with the Academies Bill.

David Davies: On a point of order, Mr Caton. It was impossible for myself and a number of other people to make the very important Division just now, because of the large numbers of people coming out and pushing against us as we entered from the Portcullis House end, and because of a number of Members who, unfortunately, instead of vacating quickly, decided to hang around talking, preventing people from getting in. As a result, a number of people just missed a very important vote. I would like to put on the record my concern at the eight-minute time limit and the fact that people are not getting out of the way quickly enough to allow Members from Portcullis House to vote.

Martin Caton: The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well, and I hope that hon. Members recognise that they need to show courtesy during a vote.

Richard Bacon: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr Caton. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has rightly apologised for having misled the House. However, if he is to be able to do his job, he must have the necessary information from IPSA, for which he must answer in the House. If there is a delay in providing him with the accurate information, he and the House are put in an impossible position.

Martin Caton: Things have now been clarified, and I would like to move on to amendment 71.

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move amendment 71, page 3, line 7, at end add-
	'(7) Before making any payments under an Academy agreement the Secretary of State shall make an assessment of the extent of centrally-provided SEN provisions that, were the school to operate as a maintained school-
	(a) would be required by a school with the likely pupil profile of the proposed additional school, or
	(b) is currently called upon by the maintained school which is converting to Academy status.
	(8) Before making any payments under an Academy agreement the Secretary of State shall make an assessment of the likely disruption to centrally-provided SEN services that might result from equivalent reductions in local authority budgets.
	(9) Payments made under an Academy agreement must reflect the assessment made according to subsections (7) and (8).'.
	We come to another important amendment. However, before I start, I should like to welcome the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) to his new post. He has just been allocated a ministerial post in the Department for Education, as the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning. I congratulate him on that appointment, which I gather will involve shared ministerial responsibilities with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I very much welcome his appointment to that position, and I know that he will work with diligence and determination. He and I have known each other for a long time. We go back over a number of years, in our various roles in Nottinghamshire, so I sincerely hope that he does well. I wish him the best and wish him good luck with things over the next few months, years or whatever it turns out to be.  [ Interruption. ] Well, maybe not decades-I certainly will not be here if it is, but that is another story.
	I have tried to be conciliatory and reasonable in the debates on amendments that we have had so far in this Committee stage on the Floor of the House. The debate, on a whole series of issues, has so far been of a high standard, with contributions by Members from all parts of the House, as is appropriate for the Committee stage, which in many respects is different from the full debates that we often have on motions. The Committee stage is about trying to ascertain what the real meanings of clauses are and what the consequences of different parts of the Bill will be, and to see whether we can adapt, change and improve the legislation, or at least the guidance that goes alongside it.
	Nowhere is that more important than in special educational needs. I do not doubt for one minute that Members from all parts of the Committee will have at the front of their minds how we can ensure that the provision that we make for special educational needs-particularly through the changed arrangements, with the academy model proposed in the Bill-protects those with special educational needs. Again to be reasonable, we also know that the Government made some amendments in the House of Lords that significantly improved the Bill. If I might say so, those changes-made as a consequence of the debate and discussion in the other place-have made a significant difference to the Bill, a point that is also worth putting on record.
	The point of amendment 71 is to try to understand in more detail the consequences for special educational needs provision of the changed arrangements for schools, with more schools opting out, becoming academies-or free schools-and being independent of local authorities. We want to know what that will mean for the provision of services for those young people who we would all want to ensure received the quality of education and support that we would want them to receive.
	There is no doubt-I am sure that this would be true whatever the challenges that existed-that we can all point to the quite exceptional services provided by local authorities to support young people with special educational needs, either in school or through their families. Often, the important thing is not just the support that the child receives in the school, but the support that the family receive to support their child in that school. Clearly, the local authority's role in that is crucial. I am sure that we can point to many excellent examples, but I know that we could all identify instances where things have not worked out so well, and where a local authority has not provided the standard of service that we would want. Overall, however, the role of the local authority in co-ordinating support is extremely important.

Robert Flello: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are far too many young people across the country who still have not even gone through the assessment process with their local authority and been identified as having special educational needs?

Vernon Coaker: That is a very good point. I mentioned yesterday that this is not simply a question of young people being assessed by a local authority and not receiving a statement, even though most people think that they should have received one. I have no professional expertise in that area, however.
	To be fair to the Government, the inclusion in clause 2 of proposed new subsection 8A, which deals with low incidence special needs, is important and significant. We are talking not only about the young people who everyone would expect to have statements for their special needs, and for the first time the Government have put into the legislation the term
	"low incidence special educational needs or disabilities".
	That represents a significant improvement to the Bill. I know from my own experience that young people with low incidence special needs often do not receive the support that they deserve, and neither do their families. They often do not receive the kind of educational or social support that they need.

Charlotte Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Vernon Coaker: I will in a moment.
	Proposed new subsection 8A is very well intentioned, but clause 2(6) also states that the Secretary of State may intervene when
	"a local authority fails to secure satisfactory provision for pupils with low incidence special educational needs or disabilities".
	What does that actually mean? It is all very well to put that proposal into the Bill, but how will it be funded, organised and co-ordinated? How are we going to decide in a meaningful way what
	"low incidence special educational needs or disabilities"
	means? This is a huge problem. I am not criticising the Government; I think the inclusion of those words is very good. I would rather have the problem of trying to identify what they mean than not have them in the Bill, which would risk people not having those needs met.
	The inclusion of the provision raises the serious question of how it is to be funded. Where will the funding come from? How much is it expected to be? Who will co-ordinate the arrangements if, instead of the local authority, we have lots of independent academies, special schools and free schools? How is this part of the Bill going to be achieved?

Charlotte Leslie: The hon. Gentleman has partly anticipated my question. Does he agree that our looking at how to cater for low incidence special needs in the Bill is symptomatic of the much wider question of how to deal with programmes such as School Action and School Action Plus? I am sure that they represented a well intentioned move away from statementing and the closure of special schools, but their results were questionable. Does he agree that this wider problem needs to be addressed, and that the Bill provides a spectrum through which to look at it?

Vernon Coaker: We discussed special schools and the number of special school places yesterday, but let me say this. I approve of the policy objective-which has been shared across the House for a number of years-that, when appropriate and given the proper safeguards in regard to such matters as parental choice, we should include as many young people as possible in mainstream education. It is clear that, if that objective is implemented, the number of special school places will fall. A more difficult question is whether we are all certain that, in every single case, a young person has been placed in mainstream education rather than being given the opportunity of going to a special school, and I think that the answer to that is probably no.
	The hon. Lady is right to suggest that this raises questions about special schools and about inclusion. I think that the policy of inclusion is right, but that does not mean we should not ensure that the process by which it is decided where a child should be educated is a matter for discussion and agreement, involving the child's parents, rather than diktat.

John Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. As he says, we go back a long way, and as he knows, I have a great deal of respect for him.
	We will discuss inclusion when I have a chance to speak at greater length. As I know that, rightly, you will not allow me to do that now, Mr Caton, let me simply say that the statementing process is critical to all this. A statement must be clear about the detail of needs, because the specificity of its analysis bears a direct relationship to the extent to which we can quantify and deal with those needs. Historically the standard has not been good enough, but the Government will consider it carefully in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Vernon Coaker: That is a fair comment, like the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) about the number of special schools, special school places and statements in process. All that needs to be kept under review.
	The Minister should bear in mind-he may wish to discuss this when he winds up the debate-that new paragraph 8A and subparagraph (6) do not necessarily concern young people for whom a statement would be thought appropriate. They concern young people with low incidence special educational needs, which can involve a multiplicity of conditions and which will, I think, prove difficult to define. Certainly the criteria to be employed in the making of a judgment will be a matter for considerable debate. However, as I have said, I would rather have a debate about the meaning of the subsection than see it excluded from the Bill. It constitutes a good and brave step forward. However, as my amendment makes clear, it also raises questions about local authority co-ordination and funding.

John Hayes: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. My own points are, first, that that should not be used as an excuse for not statementing children who would benefit from a statement for the reasons that I gave earlier, and secondly, that we should be as determined to help children with low incidence special educational needs as we are to help those facing more profound challenges. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, we need to be clear about the mechanisms that will be required, but I do not consider that to be incompatible with any of the provisions in the Bill.

Vernon Coaker: I do not disagree with the Minister, but I think we would all agree that statementing has not always taken place when it should have. It is always necessary to examine the process and see how it can be improved. Ultimately, irrespective of the severity of a child's need, we must ensure that that need is met. For some that will require through statements, for some it will require special school education, and for some it will require inclusion in mainstream schools. The inclusion in mainstream education of as many young people as appropriate-which was supported by the last Government and the last Conservative Government and, I believe, by the present Government-is absolutely right, as long as it does not cause us to conclude that it must take place irrespective of the wishes of parents or the needs of the young people themselves.

Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I entirely agree about the fallacy that will be perpetuated if the Bill leaves the House without a clear definition of low incidence special educational needs. The lack of clarity has been used as an excuse all along, which is why so many children have not received proper assessments or statements. It has been too easy to find a way around the wording, because it has been so vague. If the Bill leaves the House without a refinement of that definition, the lack of clarity will once more be used as an excuse, and those who are on the edge or the cusp of special educational needs will once more be left adrift. That will be the case not only during the first stage of their education, but throughout their educational career. I am with the hon. Gentleman 100 per cent. in trying to get clarification, but does he agree that it would be wrong for the Bill to leave the House without such clarification being written into it?

Vernon Coaker: I very much agree and it is important, given that the Government will not amend the Bill, for the Minister to read into the record the criterion that will be used to assess whether a young person has low incidence special needs. I say this as someone who thinks that it is very brave of the Government to propose the measure. But as the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) said, if there is no defining criterion, we will have a well-intentioned measure, but what will it mean? That is extremely important.
	There was a big discussion in the House of Lords and the measure was included in the Bill. A large number of Lords spoke about it and said that it was important. The Government accepted that but the situation has moved on. The hon. Member for Portsmouth South is right; for a local authority or school to be obliged to support a young person with low incidence special needs, do they need a statement? If not, there is no legal obligation-I am not an expert on these laws-on the school or authority to provide anything for that child. Yet everybody, including the Government-they have included it in the clause-thinks that there are young people with low incidence special needs who need additional support that they are not getting through the system.
	This is a real problem for the Government to address; it is crucial. I am not trying to be smart or trying to attack; I am just saying that if we want to improve the Bill and we want to make a difference to those with low incidence special needs, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth South said, we have to try to define that, at the very least by the Minister reading it into the record.

Bill Esterson: I wanted to add to the points about low incidence special needs, as there are other reasons why it is important to spell out the protection of services provided centrally. In those councils where the cancellation of centrally provided services has taken place on the assumption that schools would buy services back in, there has been a failure to take up that buy-back option, which affects SEN in particular but also other services. That is an important reason why we need that protection to be in the Bill. If not, as my hon. Friend says, Ministers need to take the matter on board so that there is robust protection for centrally provided services. Otherwise, those services will disappear.

Vernon Coaker: I agree with my hon. Friend who re-emphasises my point. This is part of the tension within the Bill; independence is to be given to schools. Some may agree with that; we have difficulties with the haste with which it is being done. But what mechanism is there to ensure that local authorities provide for these young people in a way that gives them the support they need?

John Hayes: Following the Education Act 1993, we have had codes of practice for SEN whose provisions are important in ensuring good practice. In the halcyon days when I was shadow Schools Minister, I was able to debate those codes of practice and the Government listened to some of the Opposition's arguments. That is one important aspect of protecting SEN students and their parents. But also if the Secretary of State were unhappy with the provision, he retains the powers to intervene.

Vernon Coaker: That is true, and it is stated in the Bill that where a local authority fails to secure satisfactory provision the Secretary of State may intervene and make "alternative arrangements". The problem is what does "low incidence special educational needs or disabilities" mean? How will a local authority or a school-an academy or special school-know whether they are meeting the expectations of the Secretary of State without a definition of what that actually is? Without that, the response will just be subjective, with people saying, "That isn't very good" or "That isn't working," which is clearly unacceptable.
	The Minister might not be able to do this today, but it is extremely important that at some point-even late on Monday-something is read into the record that defines what that term means. Other Members may disagree, but it is my view that for that to be done otherwise through guidance or a letter will not be sufficient. The force of Parliament needs to be behind some definition and criteria for the term, over and above its mere mention in the Bill and, even with the best intentions, something in a code of practice. I cannot say how important that is to making this bit of the Bill work.

Robert Flello: What I say will to some extent reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). For a host of reasons, not the least of them financial, local authorities will already decide how well to staff the team who go out and make the assessments, and if there is any wriggle room whatever they will wriggle: they will avoid putting resources into that team or department. It is therefore crucial for the future of some of the most vulnerable children in this country that we get something on the record today so that local authorities-of whatever colour-cannot wriggle out of their responsibilities.

Vernon Coaker: That is right, and my hon. Friend's comments highlight that we are not trying to make a party political point. We want to ensure that that is the case for local authorities of all political colours and types; that is fundamental and crucial. As I have said, however, I accept that it may not be possible to do this today, as the lawyers will, no doubt, need to check it.

Graham Stuart: I think that I share some of the shadow Minister's concerns. Low incidence is not about the acuteness of the need; it is about the fact that it is pretty rare. One of the risks of having funds devolved to the individual academies is that they may see this rare condition only once every five years, when suddenly a pupil turns up out of the blue with that need. That is why there is an issue about the difference between where the resource lies and who has the incentive to deliver the service. We need reassurance as to how we will have the system and incentives in place to ensure that, without the Secretary of State having to intervene at a local authority level to assess the whole authority's failing, the needs of the parents and child concerned are met and there is not a big fuss in doing that.

Vernon Coaker: I totally agree, and the hon. Gentleman makes his point very well. However, I am unclear about the legislative mechanism that we will use to try to stop bad situations arising. I cannot be sure what it will be without there being something either in the Bill or, perhaps, in statutory guidance.

John Hayes: Such is the silky charm of the hon. Gentleman and the persuasiveness of his argument that even in these few minutes he has already extracted the following from me. He is right that that needs to be set out clearly on the record. He is absolutely right about the code of practice in respect of SEN reflecting the fact that we now have reference to low incidence special needs in the Bill, as he has acknowledged, and about the funding agreement that was put in place for an academy reflecting not only the obligations in the Education Act 1996 but that code of practice. I make that commitment today, and he can claim that in this useful debate he has encouraged me to that end-although it may be an end that would have been reached in any case in my discussions with my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who, of course, takes the lead in these matters. However, I would not want in any way to understate the hon. Gentleman's contribution to that process.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Minister for that. Perhaps he could clarify in his winding up exactly what he meant.  [Interruption.] I am sorry; I am not trying to be rude. Is he saying that an existing code of practice is to be amended? If he is saying that, I gently say, again, that that illustrates one of the problems with the Bill, because most of us would like to see what amendment he is proposing to the code of practice.
	There is a huge debate-the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned this-about what the term means. Does it mean a rare condition? This debate is not only about low incidence SEN, because the Bill also refers to low incidence disabilities. All I am saying is that this is a difficult area.

John Hayes: I complimented the hon. Gentleman-it was not flattery-but I do not want him to get too insistent as a result. I will, however, give him the assurance that I will deal with this matter when I sum up and that we are absolutely clear that the code of practice is salient. I do not want to tease him too much, but he will know that when he was the Minister, and when his predecessors were Ministers, the codes of practice were always published separately and debated in this House separately-indeed he and I have both participated in such debates. Of course I will speak about this again when I sum up.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Minister for that. We will all wait to see what is said in the wind-up, because we are all motivated by a desire to see how we can make a brave amendment in the Lords a reality. We must not create something that is extremely difficult for ourselves. For too long, many of us, from across the country, have seen special educational needs not met, including those of people with profound difficulties. If we are making provision in respect of low incidence needs, we need to address how we ensure that we meet them.

Edward Timpson: We seem to be having an outbreak of cordial co-operation in the Committee. Paragraph 8A is an improvement on where we were at the beginning of the Bill's proceedings, and it deals with low incidence SEN and disabilities. Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether it ought also to include looked-after children, to ensure that the provision of services for them in any academy means that they are getting the expenditure and support that they need?

Vernon Coaker: That is an extremely interesting and good point. As I say, the problem is that there are a number of points like that. That one would be worth testing with an amendment to see where it is catered for in the Bill or, if the Bill does not cater for it, where it is catered for in any document relating to the Bill. For example, I think I am right in saying that the new model funding agreement does not contain a requirement for there to be a teacher responsible for children in care, whereas the old funding agreement did contain one. If I have got that wrong, I will correct it. All sorts of little changes sometimes take place in the documents, letters and guidance that go along with such Bills. The changes are sometimes not debated to the extent that they need to be and they then turn out to be crucial. Even Ministers get to the point where they try to do something and are then told, "You can't do that because section (c) on page 48 of the guidance that you passed says you cannot." They find that a little change that they had not properly noticed, which may have been implemented with good intent, has unintended consequences.
	The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) was right to make the point that he did. One of the organisations that I shall refer to in a minute has made representations to us about how we ensure that the needs of children in care and of children with other associated needs are met within the new academy model arrangements that the Bill proposes. All sorts of questions like this arise, particularly if we strip out, as the Bill does in essence, the role of the local authority and devolve the funding to individual school. One unanswered question goes to the heart of the Bill: what is the co-ordinating mechanism at a local level to try to ensure that some of these things happen? That is not in place, and that is a real problem.

Graham Stuart: On a slightly different track, is the shadow Minister aware of evidence that, despite the vast increase in the number of learning support assistants, the more time children with special educational needs spend with learning support assistants and the less time they spend with a teacher, the worse is their learning experience? One of the dangers of a centrally co-ordinated system is that schools that challenge a child's being taken off for special support might deprive that child of being in the classroom with the teacher and, perhaps, having a better opportunity to learn. We must get the balance right between ensuring provision and not having a monolithic delivery that stops innovation, particularly for the most vulnerable in our society who are too often failed.

Vernon Coaker: I do not disagree with that. Again, the freedom for a school to determine the appropriate mix between teachers, teaching assistants and other staff as well as the appropriate delivery method is a matter for the school. The Chair of the Select Committee is right to say that. However, it does not negate the fact-I think he was making this point, too-that alongside that there is a need for some sort of co-ordinating mechanism. He is quite right that there is a need for balance and there will be debate and discussion about where that balance should be and where the line should be drawn. However, part of the problem is that, as I said yesterday, this is a bit of a leap in the dark. We are almost being asked to take a leap in the dark and being told, "Don't worry, it will be okay." There are some fundamental questions that Ministers have been unable to answer, even though they have the best of intentions, because the Bill is permissive and just says, "Well, we'll allow this to happen but we are not quite sure where it will go."
	A number of concerns were raised by different organisations. We have heard concerns from the Adolescent and Children's Trust about children in care and about how these services will be met. It is seeking assurances about looked-after children and young people in academies, and it says that it wants recognition from the Government that there is a need for a local agency to assess need and to plan and cost education support services and that necessary resources must be not only identified but ring-fenced.
	The Association of Educational Psychologists has also written to us, extremely concerned about some of the changes to local education funding and about how we can ensure the protection of educational psychologists if all the money goes to the schools. The National Autistic Society has made many of the same points about protecting young people in schools. TreeHouse, another charity for autism, is concerned about what it will mean if funds and resources are devolved to individual schools.
	Then we come to funding. The Local Government Association states in its briefing, which all Members will have received, that
	"90% of funding for schools goes, via the local authority, directly to schools with the remainder allocated back to schools following consultation with schools through the local Schools Forum...Around 20% of this 'central spending' goes to private, voluntary or independent nurseries, and the majority of the rest (60%) is used to provide services for pupils with special educational needs, and those who are excluded from mainstream education...In the debate around the advantages to schools of seeking academy status much has been made of the advantage to schools of retaining this 10% of 'central spending'. However, it is important to understand that this is funding to meet the need of the pupils with the greatest needs. It is crucial that this funding is distributed in a way that does not unfairly benefit academies over maintained schools."
	I do not know whether hon. Members have had a chance to look at the Government's impact assessment, but tucked away, where it states that local authorities will face a reduction in the moneys that they receive for the provision of such services as it will be distributed to schools, it states the assumption that the savings to local authorities in administration costs will be negligible. So, although they will have fewer resources to provide for special educational needs in an area, they will not make any savings from an administrative point of view either.
	It is also totally unclear exactly how all this will be worked out. What will a school that chooses to become an academy receive? I know there is a ready reckoner on the Department's website, but will the Minister explain how it works?  [ Interruption. ] That was not done yesterday: we asked, but there was no time to do it, so I am asking again today because I think we would all like to know how the ready reckoner works so that schools can understand what they will receive.
	What proportion of the money that those schools receive would have gone to local authorities to provide, centrally, services for children with special educational needs? What proportion of the additional money they receive will go to schools and will not be retained centrally by local authorities? How will that be worked out given that every school that is fast-tracked to academy status is outstanding and has, as the Centre for Economic Performance has said, lower numbers of pupils with SEN?
	How will schools that have a lower incidence of SEN and that apply to become academies be funded? Will it be on a per pupil basis or a needs basis? If schools are funded on a per pupil basis rather than on a needs basis, big schools with a low incidence of SEN that convert to academies will receive exceptionally high amounts of money that would previously have been retained centrally to provide SEN services to the pupils and children across the local education area who needed them. Why did  The Times publish an article on 12 June saying that there was considerable confusion among local authorities and schools about how much money schools would receive? Why are some local authorities saying that when they add together all the amounts that the ready reckoner comes up with as being distributed to schools on the basis of centrally provided services the total is sometimes more than they receive? We need some explanation from the Minister about that.

Elizabeth Truss: Are not the SEN requirements on the new academies more stringent than those for the academies that were opened under the previous Government?

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Lady will know that I praised the Government at the beginning of my speech for making some amendments in the House of Lords. The amendment that applied measures in the Education Act 1996 to academies was a good one, as were the amendments that introduced paragraph 8A and subsection (6). I shall not argue with her about that.

Elizabeth Truss: Is not the hon. Gentleman essentially saying that the previous arrangements worked for the existing academies and that the new arrangements are even better?

Vernon Coaker: I am saying that the existing state of play is not good enough and that the amendment that was made in the House of Lords to apply the 1996 Act to academies was a good one. We are debating the further changes that the Bill will make to delegate funding straight to schools rather than via local authorities-money that would have been retained centrally to provide services. Government Members-not only Front Benchers, but Members such as the hon. Lady-need to explain how SEN services that are currently provided centrally will be protected if all that money is delegated out to schools. How will that work? The point of this Committee is to understand the Government's thinking about how that will happen.

Robert Flello: rose-

Vernon Coaker: Before I give way, let me say what we did yesterday, very successfully. I gave way a lot, and nobody complained at the end that we did not get anywhere, so I will keep giving way, if it means that nobody complains.

Robert Flello: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is extremely generous in allowing interventions. My apologies for labouring the point, but I think that it is crucial. My view is that we have not made enough central provision for special educational needs services. My fear is that the measures, instead of going further and strengthening the central provision of SEN services, will water it down.

Vernon Coaker: I agree with that, and it goes to the heart of the debate. To be fair, that is the point that the Chair of the Education Committee made about where we draw the line. Where do we draw the line between a school innovating, and a school having the ability to use its budget to provide for children with SEN?
	I know that this is not being suggested, but we would not want the Secretary of State to make thousands of individual decisions about the right mix of teachers and teaching assistants, the curriculum, and so on; that would be a matter for the individual school. However, my hon. Friend is quite right: alongside that consideration, where do we draw the line to ensure that there is money for the central provision of services-local authority provision-so that we can ensure that the support that is sometimes needed is available? That is a difficult balance. The point of this Committee is to try to test the Government's thinking on where they draw the line, and on what the funding amounts are. At the moment, we have a ready reckoner, but nowhere in the impact assessment, or anywhere, do the Government lay out exactly what they think the cost will be.

John Hayes: It is absolutely right that the central provision that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) mentioned will continue, but the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) should not underestimate the capacity of academies to purchase that provision. He will know that that already occurs; I think that it happens in Walsall, for example. The peripatetic services that a school will require can be purchased, and I do not underestimate their calibre and their appeal to academies. I do not think that he does either, does he?

Vernon Coaker: I am not trying to make the point that there are not perfectly reasonable people in academies, or in schools that may become academies, who would be able to purchase services. I do not disagree on that, but it does not answer the questions. Where do we draw the line between what we provide individually for schools, so that they have the freedom to innovate and take forward their provision for SEN, and what should be centrally provided? What is the estimated cost of all that? Is it all funded, particularly given that the Government have now included low incidence special needs and low incidence disabilities? Where is the extra money for that, and how much will it cost? How will it be co-ordinated? What does it actually mean? What are the criteria? How does that relate to the statementing process? The problem for the Government is that that has not been thought through.

Andrew Bridgen: The shadow Minister seems to be making a strong argument for reintroducing special schools, which is the opposite of the policy of the previous Government.

Vernon Coaker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that tone, because that was not the policy intention of the last Government or the previous Conservative Government. I am sorry to bore people who have sat through Committee proceedings for the past day and a half, because I have said this twice, but the policy objective-he may disagree with this-was not to close special schools. It was to ensure that people had the choice of being included in mainstream schools, if that was appropriate for them. That was the policy of the previous Conservative Government in the '90s, as was absolutely right, and of the Labour Government until 2010, as was also absolutely right. I hope that it will be the policy of this Government.
	Of course, that will mean that the number of special school places will sometimes go up, and sometimes go down. As long as that is done on the basis of having determined what is in the interests of the child, it should not matter, because it is the policy objective that is important. I tell the hon. Gentleman this: if there are 10,000 places in special schools-I do not know how many there are-and it was properly, and with parental agreement, felt that 3,000 of those 10,000 places should be in mainstream schools, I would be happy to stand at this Dispatch Box and say, "I support the reduction of special school places from 10,000 to 7,000," but that is on the basis of need and individual choice, not on the basis of ideological diktat.

Gavin Barwell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he was also generous yesterday. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), he acknowledged and paid tribute to the fact that the Government have strengthened the law so that academies will have the same SEN obligations as maintained schools. Will he also pay tribute to how the new model funding agreement also strengthens provision? It provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct academies to comply with any SEN obligations that were not in the previous funding agreements.

Vernon Coaker: I tried to make that point at the beginning; otherwise, we would not make any progress. I said that there had been improvements to the Bill and that there would have been improvements in some of the documentation associated with academies. That does not change the fact that, when it comes down to it, the Government are not clear on what the funding arrangements will be, how they will work and the correct balance between centrally provided services and the academies.
	As the Chair of the Education Committee asked, where do we draw the line and what is the balance between those issues? The Government have not given us any definition of what they mean by
	"low incidence special educational needs or disabilities."
	In Committee, we have to tease out those sorts of issues from the Government, to ensure that the legislation that we pass in this Parliament is as robust and effective as it can be.

David Ward: May I introduce one other aspect? The discussion is seemingly taking place on the basis that there is an abundant supply of learning support services and professionals. That is simply not the case. In many cases, the authority has to carry out a difficult rationing role. A good example is educational psychologists, of whom there is not an abundant supply. It is worrying that that rationing process, which most local authorities treat in a fair way, may now face a situation in which schools can simply buy in precious resources to the detriment of other schools in the district.

Vernon Coaker: That is right. The issue is not only the quantity of support services for children with special educational needs, but their quality. There is also the issue of the effectiveness of some interventions. This big area of debate is no doubt outside the scope of what we are discussing at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the provision of quality.

Bill Esterson: Whether we are talking about SEN provision, looked-after children, educational psychologists, behavioural support or other issues, what concerns me and many other Members is how we guarantee that the support will be there when it is needed, whether at school or centrally. There is also the matter of whether that can be legislated for or not. The Minister was beginning to drive at that point in his last intervention. That is what I want to hear about and I am sure that other Members are thinking the same thing.

Vernon Coaker: I agree with my hon. Friend; no doubt the Minister will try to pick up that issue in his remarks.
	How will special educational needs be monitored? What is the role of the Young People's Learning Agency? How will schools get help? How effective is the YPLA in respect of the quality of local, centrally provided services? What experience and expertise does the agency have? How will we ensure that all these things are effectively fulfilled? How much will it all cost? Who will be responsible for intervening if a school is not offering effective provision? How will the Secretary of State know that something is not being done? Who would make the decision about any of these failures? There is a huge raft of questions that I hope the Minister can begin to address.
	Our amendment is simple. It tries to ensure that a decision is made about the effect on the provision of centrally provided services of decisions about what money should go to individual schools. At the heart of that is the need for better information from the Government about where the balance should be. The amendment seeks to clarify the situation by saying that we must retain sufficient resources at a central level within the local authority to provide the necessary level of support and help for children with special educational needs, notwithstanding that the Bill will delegate large sums to them. What will be the impact of that? It is a leap in the dark-we simply do not know. Frankly, the Government have not provided the level of detail that the Committee requires because they have not had time to do so.

Rory Stewart: A man may not make a maiden speech twice. Due to a misunderstanding in Westminster Hall, I appear to have lost my maidenhood, so I apologise to the House. I would like to speak about amendment 71, but very briefly, with your permission, Mr Caton, I would like first to pay tribute to my predecessor, David Maclean of Penrith and The Border, and then bring my remarks back to this important amendment.
	In Westminster Hall, I was unable to recognise the extraordinary service that David Maclean paid to this House over 27 years. I thought that I was stepping into big shoes, but I had no idea how large. I remember climbing up a snowdrift in December last year feeling like Scott of the Antarctic reaching an isolated farmstead to find that David Maclean, like Amundsen, had already been there before me, and repeatedly. As I have moved around over the past few weeks, I have seen the incredible care that he paid to his constituents. Every time I pick up a sheaf of documents, I can see that he has written no fewer than 11 letters of astonishing energy and specificity. During the debate over the past two days, I have often heard the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) ask people to answer the question. On the basis of the letters that I have seen, Mr Maclean answered the question repeatedly, and with vigour and honour. When asked, for example, about windmills, he did not simply say, like an ex-civil servant such as myself, "On the one hand, but then on the other," but instead attacked the technology and the proposal and ensured that people organised as a social committee to oppose it.
	Let me conclude on the subject of my predecessor by saying that his greatest moment was during the foot and mouth crisis, when, with his staff, which he and I would call a cromach, in his hand, he moved across our landscape, denuded of livestock, with funeral pyres burning on the border, and defended his constituency-the ancient constituency of the Western March, that ancient mediaeval frontier-like a warden of the Western March.
	In relation to amendment 71, I have been charmed by the reasonableness of the hon. Member for Gedling. I entirely agree with him about the importance of special educational needs provision; I have personal reasons to do so. I agree also about some of the dangers that he has mentioned, such as the potential confusion between funding arrangements and the responsibilities defined within the Bill. He and the bodies that he cited are absolutely right to be concerned about special educational needs provision. I am no expert on the subject, so these comments are meant respectfully to him.
	As I say, I am not an expert on education, nor am I a lawyer, but it seems to me, as the hon. Gentleman has already accepted, that many of the things for which he is pressing have already happened under clause 1(8)(a). Some of this-again, I am not a lawyer-seems declaratory in nature rather than necessary. The focus on recognition of the condition and the right of appeal is central, but with respect I would say that there is some confusion about the amendment, and that it would not achieve the purposes that he wishes. He has talked at immense length about his concerns over funding, quality, and the definition of low incidence special educational needs. Amendment 71, to my non-lawyerly eye, would not achieve any of those objectives.
	In fact, if one listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, one heard him focus repeatedly on the word "mechanism". He is very interested in process, and on that we have a philosophical disagreement. Instead of beginning from where we are and what academies are actually doing, and accepting that the Bill will improve rather than decrease the performance of academies in relation to special educational needs, he is obsessed with central processes. He seems to believe that local authorities are the ideal mechanism.
	Reading the amendment carefully shows that it is not really as the hon. Gentleman implies. It is an attempt to do things that have nothing to do with the law. A lot of what he talked about from the Dispatch Box would be absolutely right for him to consider if he were the Minister, such as the importance of considering funding arrangements and ensuring that definitions are in place, but a lot of the detail of the amendment is about administration, not about the law. The purpose of the law is to define the objective, which, broadly speaking, is to delegate.
	I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not the like the word "delegation" and is not comfortable with it. He is not, as he suggests, simply asserting the importance of special educational needs, nor even the necessity for a process or a mechanism. He is setting out a specific process and mechanism, namely local authorities. His amendment repeatedly requires the Secretary of State to assess all the current local authority provision and the support that it provides, and to focus in that assessment on any funding requirements attached to that.
	That is a classic example of what was wrong with the previous approach. Instead of focusing on a special educational needs outcome with which we all agree, the hon. Gentleman is attempting to micro-manage the process with a preference for the local authority.
	With respect and much gratitude, I thank the Committee.

Pat Glass: The amendment is on a really important matter, and the fact that so many Members are present after 4 o'clock on Thursday shows how important.
	Given my background in this area, I wish to start by saying that a lot of it is about definitions. I welcome what the Minister has said, but as someone who is steeped in the issue and has worked in special educational needs for many years, I have to say that I am sorry, but it just is not enough. SEN is a notional term-it is almost in the eye of the beholder. It is not defined in law. There is a huge code of practice intended to give the term feel and shape, but that code of practice is nothing more than guidance. It mentions the responsibilities of local authorities, but not necessarily those of schools or academies. If we are to rely on the code of practice, it will need to be rewritten with those things specifically stated.
	SEN is also a disputed term. The very fact that we have an SEN tribunal, with which local authorities struggle all the time, and which is large, growing and very costly, and that SEN cases are in the courts all the times, suggests that the term is not defined now and will become less defined in future.
	I have gone into many schools, some of which achieve incredibly highly, and found that 50% of their children are on their SEN register. That is clearly nonsense, and there are all kinds of reasons for it. It is the teacher in the classroom, or the head teacher, who defines whether a child has SEN and places them at school action or school action plus. In many cases, they do not even advise the parent. That is illegal, but it happens. Head teachers do that for myriad reasons, including that they feel it will improve the school's contextual value added and its standing with Ofsted.
	Some local authorities still delegate funding on the basis of school action and school action plus, however stupid that may seem, as I tell them. The number of children who are at school action or school action plus or defined as having SEN depends on so many different contextual issues in different places.
	That brings us to the comments about who gets a statement and who does not. In defence of my former colleagues, I have never dealt with services that do not want to do a good job or want to prevent children from getting the support that they need. However, they are rationed services and they have to prioritise. No matter how much money the previous Government and the Government before them put into the more severe and complex end of SEN, which is growing, it inevitably drifted off to the less severe end. That is why there is a problem of children with statements who should not have them, and others who need them but do not get them. I hope that the Government can resolve it, but previous Governments have not been able to do so. One can put as much money as one likes into the hard end of SEN, it will inevitably drift off to the mild end of the spectrum.
	As the Chair of the Select Committee rightly pointed out, low incidence SEN is exactly that-SEN that occurs rarely. It is sometimes called, "low incidence; high need; high cost." Low incidence SEN services are generally classified as services for deaf and hearing impaired children and for blind or partially sighted children. Autistic spectrum disorder is not classified as low incidence SEN. It was in the past, but it is the fastest growing SEN. What will happen to autism services? If the provision is not defined, services for children with autism may be delegated.

Robert Flello: I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend's extremely well-thought-out speech, which clearly shows her vast knowledge. Does she recognise the situation that I came across in one of my surgeries at the end of last week? A family came to see me about their 18-year-old son, who is now, sadly, in the criminal justice system. It took until he was 14 before he was diagnosed with autism-far too late for the proper interventions to be made. He is now 18 and in the criminal justice system.

Pat Glass: Sadly, that happens far too often. Unfortunately, when children are diagnosed with ASD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, whether they are put through the behaviour system or the autism system greatly depends on family background and the clinical specialist they see.

Andrew Bridgen: What does the hon. Lady believe to be the underlying level of SEN in the pupil population?

Pat Glass: That is a difficult question. The more severe and complex end of SEN is growing quickly, for all sorts of reasons. For example, we are the binge capital of Europe, so why are we surprised when there is an impact on complex and severe needs? I think that the figure is approximately 0.06% of the school population. It is a small proportion. The figure for children who experience some special educational need during their education is between 18 and 20%. That does not mean that all those children have SEN throughout their career. However, vulnerable children who under-achieve are a much greater proportion of the population-approximately 30%.
	Let me revert to low incidence SEN. Special educational needs and admissions are the biggest parts of the ombudsman's work. Local authorities sometimes get them right and sometimes get them wrong. They are the most contentious areas in education. I predict that the only people who will get anything out of this measure will be lawyers. Defining low incidence SEN is a lawyer's dream. If we do not get that right now, the House will end up returning to the issue later in the year, as someone rightly said, but in the meantime, parents and children will lose out.
	Educational psychology is not defined as a service for low incidence SEN pupils. Given the degree of cuts that my local authority needs to make, it is currently looking at what percentage of the educational psychology service it can reasonably cut without damaging front-line services. Low incidence SEN services do not necessarily cover autism-depending on the local authority-educational psychology services, or children with physical or medical difficulties. The Bill mentions "low incidence...disabilities". I worked in children's services for most of my adult life, but I have no idea what that means. I guess we must leave it to a lawyer to decide.
	One thing that I am very concerned about is that parents are not involved. I have learned over the years to my cost-I have done things wrong in the past that I have learned from-that the most important people in such procedures are parents, but they will not be consulted under the Bill, which is being rushed through the House without any consultation with the organisations that support parents or with parents themselves. Frankly, the Government will come to regret that.
	The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) talked about the code of practice being an administrative issue. If he had a child with SEN, he would not see it that way. The code of practice is about children's lives and chances, and if we lose it, it will not come back.

Rory Stewart: With respect, I have a sister with SEN. I intend no disrespect at all, but the question we are addressing today is how best to serve such people. When I make a distinction between administration and law, I am making a distinction between the end-our objective, which is to help those people-and the means to that end. I am afraid that Labour Members have confused the two. They imagine that the only means to that end is through the current local authority processes. We agree on the objective and the rights of the child and the parents, but we will achieve our objectives much more accurately if we do not try to micro-manage the process here in the House.

Pat Glass: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but his view is not mine. I am opposing the Bill not for the sake of it because I am a Labour Member-I have learned over the years that it is not what makes me noble that matters, it is what actually works for children. If evidence were presented that convinced me that academies will deliver for SEN children or that free schools would make outcomes better for them, I would support them, but with my years of experience, I have serious concerns.

John Hayes: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, who I can tell is both experienced in, and passionate about, this matter, but it is important that she sets out her views on what the existing academies have done. If she is so concerned about the effect of academies on SEN, does she feel that there has been a deleterious affect on the interests of SEN children as a result of the previous Government's academy programme?

Pat Glass: If the Minister had been here-was it yesterday or the day before?-he would have known that I gave a very detailed speech on my concerns about academies. Children with SEN only very rarely gain admission to academies and there is concern about monitoring the progress of those who do, and a much higher proportion of SEN children are excluded from academies. That was an issue when we had only 200 academies, but if there is a much larger number, we will make the problem that much bigger. In addition, we would effectively exclude SEN children from the most high-achieving and outstanding schools.

Gavin Barwell: I am enjoying the hon. Lady's speech, but I wish to pick her up on one point related to exclusions. The latest figures from the Department suggest that in academies the exclusion rate for pupils with SEN is five times higher than for pupils without SEN, whereas in the general maintained sector it is nine times higher. So the evidence suggests that academies are less likely to exclude pupils with SEN than the maintained sector as a whole.

Pat Glass: I would argue that academies serve poorer neighbourhoods and it is more difficult to get into an academy in the first place. People may argue that academies take a higher proportion of children with SEN than maintained schools, but as I argued earlier it is up to academies to define who is SEN and who is not, and they may have a very different tolerance level from that of maintained schools-that has certainly been my experience.

Graham Stuart: I mean no disrespect to the hon. Lady's expertise or passion in this area, but she suggests that the existing academies make it harder for children with SEN to get in than other schools. However, the only data that we have suggest that that is not true. She suggests that academies may block children with real SEN getting in and then falsely nominate children as having SEN afterwards. She needs to substantiate that, because it is a serious allegation and if true should be looked into in more detail.

Pat Glass: I accept that that is what the data suggest. I stand here with 25 years of experience and I am simply giving the Committee the benefit of that experience.

Bill Esterson: Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend that some academies are artificially changing the arrangements-I am choosing my words carefully, and perhaps the Select Committee should look into this-but many maintained schools have been doing the same thing. That is something that I am familiar with from where I used to live, where schools would artificially depress the number of children described as having SEN, under pressure from local authorities, for financial reasons. There is a danger that this legislation would see that continuing with the academies. That should be looked at in greater detail, as the Chairman of the Select Committee suggests.

Pat Glass: I agree with my hon. Friend.
	The biggest body blow to centrally supported specialist low incidence SEN services came from delegation targets. In order to reach delegation targets, which were mandatory, local authorities arbitrarily put over the side into schools anything that would take them to the magical 96%. In some local authorities, specialist services were lost and they have never recovered.

Charlotte Leslie: I am enjoying and being informed by the hon. Lady's contribution, which is based on her experience. On both sides of the Committee, there is a recognition that SEN provision is inadequate. I did a study a while ago that showed that children on school action plus had higher exclusion rates than those on other forms of SEN statementing. We need to tackle a range of issues in this area, and I wonder whether we are looking at a large problem through the small angle of one clause in this Bill. The problem may be solved only by-to use the cliché-a root and branch review of the entire SEN system. That would improve the role of academies in that area as well. Perhaps the Minister could address that point as well.

Pat Glass: I understand the hon. Lady's point, and there are many deficiencies in the wider SEN system. My concern is that if the issue of low incidence SEN is not defined properly, the situation will be made much worse. In some respects this is not a party political issue, because we are all here to do the best that we can for children with SEN and their parents, whose lives are a struggle without making things worse.
	We have lost good specialist services over the years, when funding was delegated to schools but they did not buy the services back. I have learned to my cost, when these things have happened, that we simply cannot get those services back quickly. Teachers of the deaf and the visually impaired and blind do not hang on the back of cupboard doors; they take years to train, and it is hugely expensive. Building those services back up once they have gone, particularly if the local authority does not have the funding to do so, will be impossible and will severely disadvantage these groups of young children.

Mel Stride: Are there not examples of local authorities-one thinks of Suffolk-where the arrival of academies has not damaged SEN provision? So it does not need to be that way. Some academies have the ability to buy back services from the local authorities, but where that does not occur, does one not have to question the quality of the provision?

Pat Glass: There are two issues there. First, in the past it has depended on the number of academies. With all these arguments, there is a critical mass issue. If enough academies go and take their funding with them, it will no longer be possible for organisations, whether the local authority or some other body, to provide that service to the standard required. Have I answered the hon. Gentleman's question?

Mel Stride: Yes, the hon. Lady answered the first part of my question. The second part was: is it not of concern to her that, when academies choose not to buy their services from local authorities, those services might not be of the requisite standard? That, in itself, is a concern.

Pat Glass: No doubt there are variations in the quality of service across the country. However, in my experience, the low incidence, high-need, high-cost services across the country are usually very good and valued by schools. The difficulty is that, at the moment, there is not a market place for it, so if we lose these services and a school finds that it needs them-for instance, if a blind child comes to the school-but has no idea about Brailling, specialist services, disability or any of these things, it will not be able to buy them from a market outside.

Damian Collins: In incidents such as the one she describes concerning valued services, might not an academy school look to buy those services off the local provider for the benefit of their own pupils?

Pat Glass: Yes, it could, and yes, it should. However, as the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) said yesterday, sometimes good people do bad things, and head teachers are not always as forward thinking as we would like them to be. Obviously, the best ones are, but if a school does not have any blind children, why would it buy in to a sensory service? It could also argue that, if a child wishes to attend that school, it cannot meet their needs.

David Ward: I must say this is a fantastic debate. I was not sure of the right time to introduce this point, but it is not always the case that, if a school has its own budget, it will do the best thing by the children. The best example is probably the provision of education social work. It might seem that the school is the client of the education social worker, but of course it is not-the child is the client. Very often, if a school is offered the money, it will buy in its own education social worker, who will be a door knocker for getting those kids into the school. Once a child is on the roll and the school is getting the funding, some schools will say, "Actually, we're not too bothered if that person doesn't turn up today." Believe me, it is true! It happens-because, in many cases, schools are forced into doing it. But the child is the client, and if the best place for the child is in school, the education social worker will try to facilitate that to the best of their ability. However, if that education social worker is employed by the school, sometimes the school will let the child in, but sometimes it will not be too bothered. I have known young children who have been out of school for two years-

Nigel Evans: Order. Interventions, by their very nature, should be short.

Pat Glass: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The experiences of those of us who have worked in the education system might be very different from the experiences of those who have used it.

John Hayes: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady, as I am anxious to achieve an Hegelian synthesis between our positions. There are two things, really. The first is that the Government will be issuing a Green Paper to look at the whole issue of SEN. She is right that we need to consider it in the round-it is an issue that the Government take seriously-and that is what we will be doing. Secondly, with your indulgence, Mr Evans, let me say that the amendments to the Bill that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has suggested would mean that academies would have an unqualified duty to admit pupils with SEN statements. I just wanted to place that on the record so that we can make progress.

Pat Glass: I will wind up now. I welcome the amendment that has been made. It does help and it will give confidence to parents and teachers working in the sector. However, I have real concerns about the lack of clarity. The people who will gain will be lawyers, and there is a lot more work for the SEN tribunal to do. Parents and local authorities will yet again be left without clarification, and in many cases they will be left to find their salvation in their own way. There are good local authorities and there are not so good local authorities, and it is the children in those authorities who I am concerned about.

Stephen Metcalfe: Thank you for the opportunity to address the House-through this Committee-for the first time, Mr Evans, in this important debate. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), on making what I believe is his second maiden speech, and the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who has added considerably to this debate. I do not think that I shall be able to add as much, in terms of detail.
	As hon. Members would expect, I have studied previous maiden speeches and, not surprisingly, found them to be very formulaic. Although I do not intend to stray far from that formula, it would be worth recognising that change has come to this House. I look around and I see my new colleagues brimming with enthusiasm, optimism and energy- [ Interruption ]-well, some of them-and for this opportunity I will be eternally grateful to the good people of South Basildon and East Thurrock for sending me here. They have put great trust in me. I intend to repay that trust by being open and honest with them, and accessible and available. My one aim is to ensure not only that they have a voice, but that that voice is heard.
	South Basildon and East Thurrock is based on the old Basildon seat, which has rightly been seen as a bellwether seat for many years. Despite the recent boundary changes, it is still able to claim that title, as I believe it represents a marvellous cross-section of this wonderful country. Situated just 30 miles down the Thames from this place-and yes, I have heard every single Essex joke going, so we do not need to go through those-my constituency is made up of two halves. The Basildon half consists of Basildon new town and the wards of Vange and Nethermayne, as well as Langdon Hills and the established town of Pitsea. To the south, on the Thurrock side, I have two main towns-Stanford le Hope and Corringham-and a number of rural villages, including Fobbing, Orsett, Bulphan, Horndon on the Hill, Linford and East Tilbury, and an area called The Homesteads.
	The area is one of great diversity and although much of it is new, it has a rich and varied history. Basildon, as hon. Members probably well know, was one of the new towns founded in 1949, following the shortage of housing after the second world war. However, the name Basildon dates back to Saxon times and can be found on many ancient maps. Although many of the other towns and villages that I have mentioned can also claim that, with hundreds of years of history, there is one that particularly stands out: Fobbing, a village where one of the first of the uprisings that eventually led to the peasants' revolt took place-a revolt led by Wat Tyler, who incidentally gives his name to an important local country park. Those uprisings were the beginning of the end of serfdom. How appropriate it is that just over 600 years later it is this new Government who have decided to return some power to their citizens before there is another revolution.
	It is customary in a maiden speech, and indeed a pleasure, to pay tribute to one's predecessors, which I fully intend to do. However, as South Basildon and East Thurrock is an amalgamation of three seats, I might just need a little moment to do that. First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), from whom I have inherited approximately 30% of my seat. He represented Pitsea and Bowers Gifford for nine years, from 2001 until May this year. I would like to thank him for the care and attention with which he served his constituents over that time. I also what to thank him for the support and help that he gave me in my years of trying to win that part of the constituency. I hope I will be able to serve as diligently and as well as he has done.
	I would also like to recognise the contribution of the former Member for Thurrock, from whom I inherit the villages of Linford, East Tilbury and Muckingford. Although he and I would have sat on opposite sides of the House and been totally politically opposed to each other, we would have shared one desire-namely, to serve our residents, which I know he did so well for so long.
	Finally, I must pay tribute to my opponent at the election, the former right hon. Member for Basildon. First elected in 1997, she served the local community with great distinction as well as making a significant mark here in the House. Her contribution to the House has been recognised, as she has recently taken up a seat in the other place. Indeed, she made her maiden speech there only this afternoon. Over the 13 years, she worked very hard to highlight local issues and to support the local community-something that I intend to emulate. She also demonstrated unstinting loyalty to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)-something that I do not intend to emulate. But she never forgot who sent her here, and neither will I.
	I am sure that hon. Members would agree that one of the best parts of our job is having the opportunity to support the local community, and to go round and thank local charities, groups and organisations for the work that they do on behalf of the community. Indeed, one of my first official functions was to attend a celebratory dinner to mark the 20th anniversary of the opening of St Luke's hospice. It is an incredible place, as are all hospices. But St Luke's is perhaps slightly more incredible than most, because it was the result of one woman's single-minded determination to turn an idea into reality. With only 25p in the kitty, Trudy Westmore-Cox, together with a small but dedicated committee, went about establishing what is today one of the most respected and supported local charities. It provides a fully functioning multi-discipline hospice offering in-patient care and home care. This requires about £3 million in funding each year, much of which is raised through the support of the local community. This is big society in action, and just one of the examples of the numerous organisations I have had the privilege to support over the years.
	We are also a very industrious area, in which business plays an important role in the community. Indeed, many hon. Members might have seen the Basildon sign, of "Have I Got News for You" fame. It marks the gateway to an incredibly industrious area that employs about 45,000 people in some of the most dynamic and innovative companies around. Those companies thrive on having a supply of well-educated, enthusiastic and aspirational people. It is our duty as politicians to provide an education framework that delivers that, and I believe that the Bill that we are scrutinising today will do exactly that. It feeds into the need to provide a well-educated work force for the future. It is through our businesses and through innovation that we will get our country back on track.
	I understand the sentiment behind the amendment that we are discussing, but I believe it is ill-placed. From my experience of discussions with governors, staff and teachers, I know that they are desperate to show that they know what is best for them and their pupils, and that they know how best to serve their local communities. We must give them the opportunity to do that. I fear that the amendment would hinder that process and deprive my constituents of the chance to access academies at the earliest possible opportunity.
	These issues are vitally important to my constituents. Essex attracts many preconceptions: I think that many people misunderstand it. We are a proud county. We have our foibles, but I think that, as well as being proud, we are hard-working, industrious and generous. Those traits-combined with the opportunities that I believe the Bill, unamended, gives us-will help us to emerge from the challenges of the past 13 years.
	Finally, let me extend to every Member, both in and outside the Chamber, an open invitation to come and see my part of the world. I invite Members to come down and see what a fantastic part of the world south Essex is. I shall then be able to demonstrate to them that what we are discussing here today, and what is being discussed in Government, will make a real difference to the people in my constituency, and to the pupils and staff of my local schools.

Mike Hancock: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on the way in which he presented his maiden speech. He made an offer that a dozen or so Members may find hard to refuse. An offer of hospitality at his house for a weekend, just as the recess is starting, is one that think many Members should be persuaded to take him up on. He will be able to show them round his wonderful constituency. Let me also say how right he was to pay tribute to his predecessors. Making a maiden speech is never easy, and it is a pleasure to be the first to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spared a few moments in his speech to remember David Maclean. Those of us who knew him here will have respected him not only as a parliamentarian, but as a man of enormous courage who bore the injustice of the illness that beset him with great fortitude and-I genuinely believe-real courage. I saw the way in which he battled with his illness over a number of years. I had very little in common with him, but I always admired the formidable way in which he coped with it, up until his very last days in the House. It was a great pleasure to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say about David Maclean, and he was right to remind the House of his commitment to his constituency.
	It is not often that we feel humbled both by a Member's commitment to the issue being discussed and by the amount of knowledge that the Member brings to the discussion. It was a pleasure to witness the forthright and passionate way in which the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) presented her case. I was opposed to the idea of the Bill's being dealt with by a Committee of the whole House, but if ever there was a reason for such an arrangement, it was the hon. Lady's speech today. If it had been made in a Public Bill Committee, it would have been lost to the wider world. That is a tribute to her, and perhaps to the system that has allowed a larger audience to appreciate the words that she uttered, and has allowed her to bring her experience of these matters to bear. We should be grateful.
	Nevertheless, I have a niggling anxiety that the Bill has not received the scrutiny that it ought to have received. The debate that we have had, splendid though it has been, is unlikely to prove helpful, because some members of the coalition will see it as a formula for future legislation. I hope that that will not come about, and that this will prove to be the exception rather than the rule. I do not think that allowing the whole House to deal with legislation is helpful to Back Benchers in particular, or to the substance of the debate. The issue of special educational needs, for instance, is fundamentally important.
	The Minister told us, courteously and properly, that he would make helpful statements that would address some of the issues in the amendment. Nevertheless, the amendment poses significant questions. If a Committee had considered it over a number of weeks, and a number of days in each of those weeks, it could have been dealt with properly before being returned to the House on Report, and could have been agreed to. We could have had a much better Bill. Like everyone else, I am delighted that the Bill has improved enormously.
	I spent 10 of the happiest years of my working life working with young people with extraordinary personal difficulties-children and adults with extreme special needs, ranging from those who had been institutionalised for their whole lives-some had spent 50 or more years in an institution-to babies whose parents had recently been told of the problems that they faced and the lifetime of care and devotion they would have to show to someone with severe disabilities of one form or another. When I was doing that job, people used to ask me what I did. I said, "I bully for people who cannot bully for themselves."
	The one thing I learned at the beginning of my work with children, and with parents in particular, was that they expected so little from society. They did not ask for the earth or for things that could not be obtained. They simply asked for a fair share of resources when they were needed, whether that was in nursery, primary or secondary education, or in proper health care. Every single part of that was a struggle and continues to be. That goes back to the Education Act 1944 and to the formulation of the national health service. People with learning disabilities and those with mental health problems were neglected. They were ignored. They were put aside. They were institutionalised and forgotten. It has taken us 70 years to draw that system towards reality.
	The hon. Member for North West Durham was right; the striking anomaly is that parents have not been mentioned. The parents need to be consulted and will need to be convinced. I used to try to convince parents of young people aged between 20 and 30 that they had to let those young people go. They had cosseted them with all their love and care but they had to let them go. Those parents were starting to realise that their children would outlive them and would need to experience some risks. Young people, particularly those with acute needs, must experience such situations at the youngest possible age. I want to be convinced by the Bill that free schools will accept their part of the obligation. I am not convinced by the way in which the Bill is formulated that it will give the certainty of care that people want.
	I am disturbed by the fact that there seems to be some ambiguity about the interpretation of some of the words. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said that there was clarity in terms of subsection (8)(a), which addressed the issue. It does not. Who will challenge the provision? Who will have the right to say whether the proper provision is being provided? Who will step in? Where will the Secretary of State put suitable alternative arrangements if those arrangements do not exist because resources have been siphoned off elsewhere? Will he put new money in?

John Hayes: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is speaking with insight and I want to be clear with him. The Bill and the Government have no intention of diminishing the status of special educational needs or of the people who endure that, including the parents. There will be no relaxation of the statutory responsibilities in respect of admissions and statementing. Pupils with SEN statements must be monitored by local authorities; that is a statutory responsibility and there is no diminution of that. The hon. Gentleman is right; we must be determined to redistribute advantage in society, and we will.

Mike Hancock: I am delighted, and it was remiss of me not to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his ministerial position. I apologise to him. It is not often that an MP makes a point here and not only gets a Minister to put him right but also hears the Minister state for the record what the Government will do. That is to be welcomed. I only hope the eating is as good as the preparation seems to have been. I have some doubts about that, however, because I know from experience, from my lifetime of 40-odd years in local government and a working career that involved spending a lot of time addressing this subject, that promises have been made but so many of them have failed to be kept.

Ian Mearns: I have experience over the years as a local authority representative and also a school governor, and I have come across all too many children whose parents do not even know that they do not have aspirations for their child. Particularly in deprived communities, many parents, and consequently their children, accept the lot they are given. They have a stoicism, and also a lack of understanding about how the systems work and how they could make things better. Because of that, they do not have the fortitude or understanding to pursue improvement for their own child, and in such a scenario who will look after the child's interests in respect of these independent academies?

Mike Hancock: I 100% agree. Sadly, I have seen that so many times-somebody who has devoted their whole life to their child, but to caring for them in their home environment so that they have never really tried to develop their true potential. Mencap's slogan was about everyone having the opportunity to achieve their true potential, and all aspects of SEN education must always involve offering every child the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
	I think there is a problem for existing schools that have a very good record of trying to facilitate proper care and to provide suitable and proper education for people with SEN. Some of them might find that because of the establishment of an academy or free school and the attractive way in which they are promoted as being something better, parents will take their children away from their old school and move them into the new academy or free school simply because they have been told that it is the thing to do and that that is the way the future will emerge. That will cause damage to the fabric and set-up of the existing school, and some of them will suffer greatly.

Mel Stride: Does not that argument suggest that parents cannot be trusted-that they do not have good judgment when it comes to looking after the future of their own children? Should we not put more trust than that in parents?

Mike Hancock: I am wholly in favour of trusting parents; it is the silver-tongued politicians I am worried about, who make the suggestions to people that this is like manna from heaven and that the whole world will be changed. Politicians have more than once talked with forked tongue and parents have been misled into believing that a certain direction was the way to go only to fall foul of a politician's promise, which was usually made before or during, rather than after, an election campaign. Very seldom have such promises been made after an election campaign, and very seldom have they been fulfilled.

Graham Evans: I can talk from the experience of being a parent of a child with special educational needs, and also as an MP representing lots of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. My eldest child had trouble with his arithmetic; he would get 3s and 7s the wrong way round. I was told by the teachers that it would be okay and he would work his way out of that, but I became concerned as he got older and reached the ages of eight, nine and 10. I therefore asked about getting the SEN specialists and an educational psychologist to take a look. That did not happen; the school refused to do that because they said there was nothing wrong with him. After another academic year went by and nothing happened, I decided to employ an educational psychologist myself, and it was clear that my son had SEN issues. The local school and local authority were quite happy to take and run with the document from the independent educational psychologist -for whose services I and my family had to pay several hundred pounds-and the SEN statement was therefore put in place.
	The Bill will change the way things happen, and they did not work in the past, certainly in my area. I hear what the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) says about his concerns and the remarks of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), but I believe this Bill will put checks and balances in place to prevent what they fear from happening. The system does not work now and it did not work in the past, and this Bill is an opportunity to sort it out.

Mike Hancock: I have nothing but admiration for the hon. Gentleman for having both the ability and the courage to take on the system on behalf of his children. Parents get worn down by the system, having been frustrated by it time after time. They are physically worn out-as young people, in some instances-because of the struggles they have had to make. He was lucky that he had both the courage and the resources to take on the system, because so many parents do not have that and are always relying on somebody else to fight their battles for them.

Charlotte Leslie: I realise that this does not directly relate to the amendment, but part of the Bill deals with additional schools or free schools. There are parents of children with autism who are very much looking forward to setting up a free autistic school. That will benefit other parents of children with autism in their area who would wish to send their children to a particular school but whose local authority has not recognised that need until now. They have had their ambitions stifled by a local authority system that may not be working.

Mike Hancock: I would love it if we had an autistic school in the heart of Portsmouth. However, what happens if the autistic school is on the other side of Dorset and suddenly somebody has to pick up the bill for sending a child there? It simply will not happen and this provision will not be there. This approach is okay in London, where travelling is not a problem. Setting up specialist schools for autistic children would be great in closely defined neighbourhoods, but if these schools have to cover a large area, they will be very expensive to set up, extraordinarily expensive to staff and expensive for local authorities to fund places for or for parents to have to pay for.

Andrew Bridgen: I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), because on Friday I had a meeting with two teachers, both of whom have children with special educational needs, and they are very keen to set up a free school to provide for children with such needs. Such a school would help not only their children, but others in the local area. So this situation is not uncommon.

Mike Hancock: I can understand that. I share the frustration of those parents with the current system, but this problem will not be solved by one or two people, or a group, believing that they can solve it by setting up a free school. That is because such a school will not help the greater number of children, for example, the increasing number of children with autism.
	The hon. Member for North West Durham took an intervention about autism when she was explaining how difficult it had been to make progress on dealing with it, and she was asked what she thought about the Bill. I think that it will retard the benefits that have been introduced, particularly in respect of autism. It is difficult to get resources for people with autism into schools; lots of schools simply cannot cope with it.
	One hon. Member, who is no longer in his place, intervened to talk about his own experience; he discussed the role of child psychologists, and how it was very difficult to get them and for schools to have them. Once again, that shows one of the flaws that we must address. I was delighted that the Minister said that we would have a Green Paper and an opportunity to discuss, in some detail, the fuller implications of special educational needs. We have to protect and serve these young people now and in future generations.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the problems with provision caused by an increase in the number of diagnoses, and he also said that the Bill will retard the situation. Is not the fundamental problem relating to the diagnosis of autism the patchwork delivery across the country and a lack of specialism in certain areas? I can cite a part of the country where that applies. In Cardiff, until recently, there was no such thing as a "female child with autism". That was not because there were no female children with autism, but because the specialism was not available in the first place. That is a question of medical and other provision, and is surely not germane to this Bill.

Mike Hancock: Once again, in all the years that I have been here I have seldom been in the House on an occasion where so much common cause has been put by people who care so passionately about the issue. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. There is a widespread lack of clarity about who diagnoses, about who is prepared to do it and about who is really suffering. For years, autism was seen as something that kids would grow out of. It goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) about his son's failure to be able to do his maths properly. The old adage of, "He or she'll grow out of it", was used for years as an excuse to people whose children had autism. That was a complete failure of the medical and educational systems in this country.

Charlotte Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman get rid of my confusion on one issue? There seems to be inconsistency in the attitude towards parents. On the one hand, there has been concern that parents are not key in the Bill and that they have not been consulted enough, but on the other hand, when it comes to empowering parents the same enthusiasm is not shown. Speaking from my experience, I find that parents do not want to be consulted so much as to get what they want. The measures in the Bill to enable parents to do that are, according to my experience of what parents want, far more important to parents than just being listened to and not having what they want happen after that.

Mike Hancock: That is the story of the past 60 years. Parents were spoken to but they were not listened to, so they ended up not getting what they wanted. When parents are consulted, particularly parents who have children in this situation, they are only too aware of what they would like to see happen. They would like to see services without having to arm wrestle for them and without having to fight the system and to appeal. That has happened with the failure of many local authorities properly to carry out assessments and to provide statements for children. Why should parents have to struggle to get a statement for their child, as they have to, simply because they disagree? I have been to statement conferences on children where none of the officials in the room had met the child. They were all talking from somebody else's notes, which had been provided by people who had met the child. The parents were sitting there in total disbelief and I just told them, "Let's get up and go," and we walked out.

Charlotte Leslie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I find that the debate is again moving towards a general complaint about the whole system of SEN provision and I want to thank the Minister for his announcement today that there will be a Green Paper to look into this matter. Once we have the whole system of SEN sorted out, the issues that we are facing with this Bill will become much clearer and much less problematic.

Mike Hancock: The hon. Lady is a formidable supporter for the Minister, and one that the House will have to learn to deal with. She is fighting his corner and that of the coalition very well, and I would probably be grateful for it except on this occasion I do not agree with one word of what the coalition has come up with.

Rory Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What is the relevance of this to amendment 71? I do not understand how it is relevant.

Mike Hancock: That is perhaps more of a question for you, Mr Evans, than for the hon. Gentleman.  [ Laughter. ] I give way.

Pat Glass: How do I follow that? On the issue of parents, I said earlier that I am someone who has been humbled and that I have made mistakes. That is why I am saying to the Minister that there is an important role for parents. It is always harrowing to listen to the stories of parents when they know that there is an issue and that their child has needs but those needs are not being addressed. There is always a dilemma. We hear a lot about how hard up we are, about how there is very little money and so on, but there is not enough money in the world for SEN. We must face that. It becomes about priorities.
	I have never met a parent who did not want the best for their child. Sometimes they have not always been able to display that in the best way-sometimes they have been very aggressive-but they still want the best for their child. In all my years of experience, however, I have never once been approached by a parent who said, "I want to open my own school"-never once. That is not to say that it does not happen because, as I said earlier, there are good local authorities and poor local authorities. I sympathise with parents who live in those areas where there is a lack of provision, particularly for autism.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Lady must intervene briefly.

Pat Glass: Oh, right-can I make one quick point? Where special schools have been set up, whether by parents or by other organisations, the difficulty is that we all want to put money and resources in at the hard end, but what inevitably tends to happen is that that drifts away. When we look at schools that have been established, with the best of intentions, for the children with the greatest need, the children tend, in some cases, to have less severe needs.

Mike Hancock: I am grateful for that intervention, and for your patience, Mr Evans, in allowing two interventions on the jump, so to speak. The hon. Lady makes a valid point. She is honest enough to say that she has made mistakes. There have been some big mistakes-I have made some very bad judgments in cases that I have fought. I remember a particularly harrowing case that we did not win because of cost: one child's care would have cost more than £120,000 a year, which is a formidable sum of money in any circumstances. Everyone agreed that the placement was right, but the local authority simply could not contemplate spending more than £1 million over 10 years on one child. As we walked out, I asked the parents what they wanted to do and the father said, "Well, Mike, it's about time you and I decided to rob banks to get the money for these kids to have the care they really need." No parent should have to think that the help their child needs will not be there. I wish Ministers all the very best, because I believe that they are well intentioned, but this is a big issue.
	I shall come back to amendment 71 for the benefit of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who could become a bit difficult if he pulls that trick too often in Committee; he will not be very popular if he starts asking about the relevance of comments to amendments. The importance of amendment 71 is that it poses questions that are not answered in the Bill. People want the reassurance of having those measures in the Bill because this is about laws and the way they are interpreted. The amendment would make it clear that parents have a right to be properly consulted and would make clear where the various aspects addressed in the amendment would be delivered.

John Hayes: I know that my hon. Friend is reaching the exciting peroration to his speech and I do not want to interrupt the seminar that he and the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) are offering us, but it is important to point out that we take autism seriously and that academies do not prevent appropriate planned provision, including for autism. He might know that Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College academy has an autism unit that provides not only for pupils there but for those in the wider community. I want to give an absolute assurance that the Government take autism seriously and that they will look at it in the context of the Green Paper I have mentioned.

Mike Hancock: I never doubted for a minute the Minister's sincerity or his commitment to it. What I do doubt is the ability of any Government to deliver properly the provisions we want, and I do not want to be seen to be supporting something that I think falls short of what all the parents we have been talking about expect from us. They want to see clarity of thought, a clear direction of travel and a means by which academies and free schools can provide this education without detriment to other schools in their area or to other young people with similar difficulties. That is why amendment 71 should be pursued. I hope that it is not withdrawn; I hope that it is voted on and that the House gives it a fair wind, because it would substantially help the Bill.

Pauline Latham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on making his maiden speech. I have been to his constituency and I used regularly to visit a secondary school there in Pitsea. I recommend that he should go and visit it. I am not sure if it still has the same head, but he used to sing in a famous pop group in the 1960s. I cannot remember the name of the group but it was very famous at the time-

David Evennett: Very memorable then?

Pauline Latham: Very memorable, yes. From time to time, he would entertain his school in assembly by taking up his guitar and singing some of the songs for which he used to be so famous. I suggest that my hon. Friend visit him. As that was one of the first grant-maintained schools to go, I am sure that it will become an academy school as soon as possible. However, it is in a poor area. My hon. Friend has not just got nice leafy areas in his constituency; it is quite a mixed area, so I wish him well.
	There are to be guidance notes on SEN when the Bill becomes an Act. I have a few questions about SEN, because there are many children in schools who have not just SEN but health needs. I cannot see anywhere where that has been addressed; I guess that it will come in the guidance notes. I urge the Minister to clarify what legislation there will be that impacts on the health funding that currently supports special needs children, and how that funding will continue in academies. It is very important that health needs are met, particularly in residential special schools, because it is expensive to educate children in that way, and the health authorities have an obligation to fund the meeting of some of the needs. I am not quite sure how that dovetails with the funding for schools from the local education authority.

John Hayes: I will deal with that matter when I sum up-some time in the distant future, no doubt-but to be clear, the hon. Lady's point is profound, because not only does it apply to children who have special needs from birth, but it deals with the important issue of acquired special needs. It emphasises the fact that special needs are dynamic, because the conditions that children and young people face are themselves dynamic. We will certainly consider those matters. I will say a little more on the subject when I sum up.

Pauline Latham: I thank the Minister for that assurance. I am sure that many parents will be interested to hear what he said, because the issue is important to them. There is also the issue of funding of residential special school places. I mentioned that there are residential schools that cost an enormous amount of money. Some of that money comes from health funding, and that is an issue that he will deal with, but I would like to know-again, this will probably be in the guidance-how we will fund residential special schools. There are quite small schools that are very important for the children who go to them, who often have complex special needs that it is difficult to meet in anything other than a residential school.

John Hayes: So that I do not have to say too much when I sum up, perhaps I ought to make it plain that the law is clear that when a child is statemented, and their needs are specified, there is a duty to ensure that those needs are met. That might include provision outside the local authority area. Indeed, I spent a great deal of time in the 1980s, when I was a councillor in Nottinghamshire, fighting for parents, families and children who wanted their needs met outside the county. That does not change as a result of this legislation.

Pauline Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance, as I am sure parents have concerns about security of funding for schools that wish to become academies. If one has a child in such a school, and one wants continuity, it is extremely difficult when there is any sort of worry about whether funding will continue.
	I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend-

John Hayes: Hon. Friend.

David Evennett: It is only a matter of time.

Pauline Latham: Sorry. Perhaps in time. I know that under the Academies Bill, special schools will not become academies immediately; they must wait another year. I think that was said yesterday. What about independent special schools that wish to become academies? Will they be allowed to become academies at the same time as schools in the maintained sector? Will they be allowed to become special schools within the academies system at that same time, or will they have to wait a bit longer?

Neil Carmichael: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) for his excellent maiden speech. I am from the north and I know his beautiful constituency extraordinarily well. I also know David Maclean, who was a fantastic MP, and I pay tribute to him, too. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), whose constituency I know slightly less well, although I think that it is somewhere near where "Dad's Army" used to be filmed.
	One thing that I have picked up from this debate is that Members on both sides are concerned about special educational needs. The hon. Member for Gelding, the shadow Minister, made that clear.  [Laughter.]

Vernon Coaker: On a point of order, Mr Evans. Is there any way of sending out a notice that would enable hon. Members to get right the name of my constituency, which is Gedling? Otherwise, as I keep saying, I am going to have to change my voice.

Neil Carmichael: I am sorry about that. I am deaf in my left ear, and I always assume that that is some excuse. Very many apologies. I am from Stroud, and that sometimes gets mispronounced, although not as significantly as the hon. Gentleman's constituency can be.
	Amendment 71 has a couple of problems. Funnily enough, the shadow Minister-I shall not make my mistake again-emphasised that. It is too much about assessment rather than provision. Assessing things raises the question of how long it will take and what the implications are. The problem with the amendment is that it will delay the arrival of academies. I believe that a step is being taken in the direction of improving special educational needs provision, and that is one of the points that I want to make. We need to talk a little about history.

Graham Evans: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. I want to share what happened recently in one of the schools in my constituency. A severely autistic child had been in the mainstream for many years-from reception and through years 1, 2 and 3. It was becoming apparent that he needed more care than could be given in that school. The community is close-knit; everybody knew the child and the family. However, the length of time that it took the local authority to come up with the statement was a complete disgrace. Eventually, it made the right decision and said the right things, but we could see the angst on his parents' faces when they came to collect him from the playground. Do we have to put parents through that, when even as lay people we know what the answer will be? Why cannot the authorities that currently have to make the decisions make up their minds more quickly?

Neil Carmichael: My hon. Friend's point is exactly correct; local authorities can and must start addressing those issues.
	I also want to talk about special schools, which have been mentioned. Of course going into mainstream education is preferable to going to a special school, but the fact is that there is a place for special schools. Some time ago, when I was a parliamentary candidate for Stroud, we were fighting a battle to save Bownham Park, a special school that was providing an excellent education-not for a huge number of pupils, but for a number large enough to justify its continuation. It provided education to a range of children from the ages of seven to 16. That school was closed. The parents wanted to keep it open, but the Government were effectively behind its closure and the local authority, under a Labour administration, was pivotal in ensuring that that happened. That is the sort of history that we have to bear in mind when we consider the performance and decision making of local authorities. It emphasises my hon. Friend's point. Local authorities are sometimes responsible for poor decisions, and we cannot allow that to continue.
	Another school in my constituency is Vale of Berkeley college, which has a closure notice. Roughly 40% of its intake have special educational needs. Again, it is not a huge school. It could take some 400 pupils; it now has about 260. Of course, with the threat of closure, pupil numbers are diminishing. The decision to close the school was largely a result of the Badman report, which was instigated by the previous Secretary of State for Education-or "Children, Schools and Soft Furnishings", as somebody called the Department. Vale of Berkeley college is another example of forces outside the local authority and our county making a decision for people with special educational needs that is not in their interests.
	That brings me to the role of the local education authority. The shadow Minister has admitted during the course of this afternoon that SEN provision has a mixed record across local authorities, and that has been a theme throughout the debate.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that pupils with special educational needs are very vulnerable to disruption, and that little is more disruptive than moving school? In my constituency, we have a three-tier education system, which adds an extra complication for all pupils, especially those with special educational needs because they have to move again at 14. I would like that to be reduced to a two-tier system. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to those concerns.

Neil Carmichael: That is a good point. Three-tier systems are not particularly common, but where they exist I am sure that that is a difficulty. They do not occur in Gloucestershire, but they do, or did, in Northumberland, where I hail from.
	I often find in my postbag complaints about statementing. For many parents, getting a statement is something of a struggle. Local authorities tend to take a long time over these decisions, partly because it is a budget issue, partly because it is a question of understanding why a statement should be issued, and partly because it depends on the resources available within the appropriate department. Many parents find it difficult to get the statement that they think they require for their children, whom they clearly want to look after.

Robert Buckland: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the amendment is that any assessment ignores the fact that SEN is a dynamic area of education which is changing constantly, so that as soon as an assessment is made it will be largely out of date?

Neil Carmichael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. SEN is an emerging story-we all know that. The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), with her vast and important experience, made those points as well. That complicates the situation on statementing.
	It is not just a question of parents getting a statement, but of what happens when they do. That is just as problematic. I have seen in my postbag cases where a statement has been provided but its consequences are not deliverable for the child. We must remember that provision through local authorities is not as perfect as it ought to be.
	We need to consider what happens in academies-that is what the amendment is all about. We already have governors in schools, and they are very important. Governance performs a valuable function in ensuring that schools perform properly, reach appropriate targets and deliver the high-quality education that we need. In the schools of which I have been a governor, we have had a governor specially responsible for special educational needs.

Ian Mearns: It is a legal requirement.

Neil Carmichael: Yes, and such accountability is necessary and good, and we will find it in academies. Of course, we have to ensure that not only is there a legal requirement for such governors, but that they do their job and ensure that SEN provision is properly maintained, promoted and delivered in their academy or school. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need to consider that as the Bill takes its form.

Chris Skidmore: Does my hon. Friend agree that academies take more than their fair share of SEN pupils? In fact, many academies are keen to do so as part of their funding agreement. Many educational charities that want to set up academies-I am sure many more will want to do so as a result of the Bill-have a special interest in looking after pupils with special educational needs. The divide that has been drawn between the academy and the local authority is a bit artificial. Some Opposition Members see the local authority as somehow the protector of pupils with SEN and academies as their opponents, but that is wrong. Academies are there to strengthen and support SEN as part of the process of inclusion that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) mentioned. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Neil Carmichael: I certainly do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that academies' record in that regard is good so far. We know that because there are more than 200 of them and we can see the provision that is being delivered.

David Ward: May I follow up on the point that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) made? I have heard discussions several times over the past day or two about whether academies are inclusive, both in the number of free school meal pupils that they have and in SEN provision. The point has been made that they have a higher than average proportion of children who get free school meals or SEN provision, because of the communities that they serve. However, the evidence is that over time that proportion goes down. The danger is that because-no, I will sit down, because I am getting into a speech now; I am learning.

Neil Carmichael: I am not sure whether it was a speech, but the point is interesting and we should look into it. Of course, the Minister has already promised a Green Paper on the wider issue of SEN, so we should discuss that matter. I thank the hon. Gentleman for a point well made, but I believe that thus far, academies are delivering proper provision.
	This matter has already been discussed in the House of Lords, and Baroness Wilkins, in an effective performance, produced two changes to the Bill. One is that the Secretary of State can intervene if special educational needs are not properly provided for. That is a sensible step and a provision that is broadly welcomed.

Ian Mearns: A cumbersome aspect of that is that the Secretary of State's office could be inundated with individual cases of parents who feel that the special educational needs provision for their child has not been tackled effectively.

Neil Carmichael: That is also an interesting point, for which I thank the hon. Gentleman.
	The Bill is essentially a good measure. It provides for more academies, and we support that because we believe that good leadership, good management, flexibility and less intrusion from local authorities will deliver a higher standard of education. Of course, that must include provision for special educational needs.
	We have been promised a Green Paper on special educational needs. The time to discuss the subject is when that is published. A constant theme of the past two or three hours has been the lack of satisfactory provision for special educational needs throughout the country. There are pockets where it is not good enough and delivery that needs to be improved. As long as that is the case, we cannot be satisfied, and we must therefore endeavour to improve the overall provision for special educational needs.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate. It was also a pleasure to hear the maiden speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). Both spoke in a fine fashion, and they will be an adornment to not only their constituencies but the House.
	I want to start on the most positive note that I can. I think that we all agree that the current system for dealing with special educational needs is not appropriate. The-I used the word yesterday-"pushiest" parents, certainly the most articulate, are best able to get their children statemented and their needs recognised. That is the current system, and people realise that it is not good enough. We heard from the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), in another excellent contribution based on her years of experience, her explanation of the difficulties. The current system is broken.
	The Minister has promised a Green Paper in the autumn to look at the whole subject of special educational needs. At that time, I hope that the House will have more time to reflect on, consider and possibly improve the policy. Rushing policy making does not always help, particularly when dealing with low incidence SEN or something that is on the margins of the mainstream. Although there are so many children with SEN, it remains to be tackled.
	I do not support amendment 71, but I think that it may be looking for an explanation from the Minister of how the system will work. The hon. Member for North West Durham, who will be an excellent Member of the House and an excellent member of the Select Committee, talked about priorities. That brings me to my favourite topic when dealing with public service reform: incentives. Too often, we reorganise the system without fully understanding the incentives that are in place for the various players in it. We deserve an explanation from the Minister. Given his ability, I know that we will get it. I want to hear how precisely the incentives will work for schools that at times resist parents who are trying to do the best for their children, to the extent that only parents with the nous, money and self-confidence can challenge them and get their child statemented. What happens to the others? I want to hear how the system will work so that, following the changes, it does not become worse. There is nothing obvious in the Bill to make it worse, but I want a cohesive narrative from the Minister about how the system will be better even before the Green Paper is produced. I want to be assured that it cannot possibly get worse. We cannot have more parents in that position.
	People come to us, as constituency MPs, about all sorts of topics. I can think of many constituents who are particularly articulate, well educated and well placed, and who have relatives and friends in good positions, yet they are still endlessly and unjustly frustrated by a system that can often seem unbelievably resistant to doing the right thing.
	Whenever I meet those people and try to help them-sometimes successfully, sometimes not-I reflect on the people who do not have their self-confidence, education and ability. It is therefore incumbent on us to ensure that legislation creates something that will be more just, not less. We need to hear that from the Minister, as I know we will. I wish we had more time to reflect on the Bill, and that members of the Education Committee from both sides of the House and others were in a better position to improve the Bill, but we are where we are.
	The hon. Member for North West Durham talked about the hard-end drift-perhaps it will be called the "Glass drift"-and said that even when money goes in, it somehow drifts away. That must be because of the pressures within the system: the way human beings work-those who do the jobs that she did in the past, parents and people in schools-leads to money not going where people want it to go. It is therefore not enough for Ministers to wish the right outcomes-all hon. Members wish the right outcomes. Rather, they must show that they understand the engineering of the system sufficiently to deliver them. We are dealing with the most vulnerable of our children, and we cannot have an already bad situation made worse inadvertently by Ministers in a hurry who do not have sufficient explanations. I am sure that that is not the case, but I would hate to think it was. We should not be blinded by the desire to appear to be acting if we are doing the wrong thing.

Ian Mearns: Having worked in the system and taken a number of cases to education appeals panels, I have often seen a situation in which council officers think they are doing the right thing by the system by refusing parents what they want, because they believe that other provision is nearly as good but less costly. Does the Chair of Education Committee accept that if parents want provision that costs tens of thousands of pounds a year, allowing that provision incurs an opportunity cost to the system and other children within it?

Graham Stuart: There is always an opportunity cost and people always have to make judgment calls. We need to know who makes those calls, what the pressures on them and their incentives are, and their accountability. It all comes down to that, and understanding what the accountability mechanisms will be if there is a much-increased number of free academies.

John Hayes: Rather than waiting till I sum up, may I deal with that point head-on now? My hon. Friend, as Chair of the Education Committee, clearly has an entitlement to ask such penetrating questions-indeed, we expect him to do so-so let me be clear. The Secretary of State would decide whether appropriate provision had been made. If not, he would either direct the local authority to make it, or in exceptional circumstances, ask an alternative body to do so. The funding for such provision in the latter case would come in the first instance from the Department for Education, which would then consider how to ensure that funding in the longer term prevails. That is an absolute assurance that the Government take my hon. Friend's point seriously: those powers rest with the Secretary of State.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I assume that in reality, the "Secretary of State" means the Young People's Learning Agency. My understanding is that the systems, embryonic as they are, are probably not as good as they ought to be, and I assume that YPLA officers representing the Secretary of State will do that work. I understand and accept the Minister's reassurance, and I think the Bill has been improved, but I am trying to work out how the pressures and incentives will work to ensure that the school admits fairly and looks after SEN children in the appropriate way when the decision gets all the way down to the school, the parent and the local authority officer, who is quite a long way away from the YPLA officer. I am struggling to imagine what will happen at that level and to think that all the way through.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend underestimates himself: I have a very high regard for his imagination.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful for the Minister's compliment, which was not flattery-if I had said that it was, he would have corrected me.
	One of the issues in this Bill, which the amendment seeks to draw out, is the system-wide implications of a growing number of schools-including free schools and existing schools-becoming independent and taking away money currently spent on their behalf by the local authority. Those of us of a supply-side revolution, 1980s, turning the sick man of Europe around disposition naturally think that things will regrow and they can be better directed by people closer to the front line. However, we need an explanation, because schools are not businesses and we need to understand how it will work.
	I wish to chide the Minister gently, although he may not have been responsible, because the place that one would naturally look for that explanation-it may be a by-product of the last Government's approach-is the equalities impact assessment. At the risk of upsetting my right hon. and hon. Friends, I would criticise the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)-I will pronounce his constituency correctly-because in many ways he has been too gentle about the equalities impact assessment in the last couple of days. I think it is less adequate than he has made it out to be.
	The equalities impact assessment is rather thin. It provides fair information, but it tries to put the best gloss on that information. Given that this is an important document to accompany a flagship Bill, I would not expect paragraph 22 to be repeated, in its entirety, as paragraph 24. I would not expect paragraph 23, which is quite long, to be split and repeated in its entirety as paragraphs 25 and 26. It would suggest that someone has not even bothered to read this so-called important equalities impact assessment. At the end, I was waiting for an assessment of the system-wide impact and the long-term and profound implication of having lots of free schools. But when I got there I found paragraph 31, which states:
	"We believe that the Academies programme is already working towards promoting inclusion and equality to the benefit of all pupils in the programme. An adverse impact is unlikely".
	Well, thank you very much. That is not an adequate explanation of the possible system-wide impacts of this Bill.
	I know that we will have a master class and a tour de force explanation from the Minister on the system-wide impact and why the Bill will work, but the impact assessment is inadequate. I meant to be gentler about this than I have been-I have a tendency to overstatement -and I apologise to the Minister. But I wish that the impact assessment had been a better document and included more recognition of the potential system-wide impacts, especially on marginal areas-if I may call them that-such as SEN.

Gavin Barwell: I will keep my remarks brief as I am conscious of the time and that the Committee wishes to hear the Minister's reply. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who made an exceptional speech. She brings real expertise in this area to the House and I am sure that we will benefit from that in the months and years ahead. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). Both yesterday and today he has approached these proceedings in a much more conciliatory tone than the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) did on Second Reading. That may reflect the difference between Second Reading and Committee stage, or it may reflect the difference in their personalities, but it is certainly appreciated on this side of the Committee.
	I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman on whether primary schools should be allowed to be academies and whether surplus places would be a ban on academy status. However, he is right to bring the issue of special educational needs up today. I imagine that all hon. Members have received a briefing from the Special Educational Consortium, which tells us that 21% of children have some form of SEN and that 12% of children with SEN achieve five grade A* to C passes at GCSE, compared to 57% of their peers. That shows the importance of getting this issue right-not just for the children with SEN, but because if we do not get it right there will be an impact on other children in the mainstream setting. The likely impact of this policy on children with SEN is therefore a key test. I am not sure whether the amendment addresses some of the concerns that he raised in his speech, but he is right to ask for some more detailed clarification, particularly in the light of the important amendments that came through on Report and Third Reading in the House of Lords.
	It is worth briefly putting on the record the improvements that the Government have already made by ensuring that for the first time academies will have the same SEN obligations as maintained schools. I also want to mention the improvement that I referred to in an intervention that the hon. Gentleman kindly took, which is that the new model funding arrangement now provides that the Secretary of State can direct academies to comply with any obligations relating to SEN. Although the new agreement will not apply to existing academies, hopefully many of them will choose to convert to it, given that in other ways it will provide more freedoms. Over time, therefore, the new agreement might spread.
	The core of the objections and concerns raised relates to what will happen if many more schools become academies and the pressures that that will put on services provided by local authorities. Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the scale of the changes-he used the phrase, "opening the flood gates"-although Ministers have provided reassurances on the pace at which they think things are likely to proceed. However, many of the same issues arise over the role of local authorities in school improvement. For example, my council provides a very good school improvement service, which I hope schools will still want to buy into when they become academies.
	I want to make three more quick points. First, the requirement for academies to have the same obligations as maintained schools is not in the Bill, but will be in the funding agreements, which means that parents who think that academies are not fulfilling those obligations will need to go to the Secretary of State, I presume, if they have a problem, rather than resort to the law. Not to have to resort to the legal route, but to go to the Secretary of State, might actually be an advantage to parents. However, as the hon. Member for North West Durham said, we should think about this from a parent's perspective, so it would be helpful if the Minister could provide more guidance on how that complaints procedure would work. What does a parent do if they have a child in an academy that they think is not meeting their child's SEN needs? What is the process for making a complaint?
	My second point is one that has already been made-it is about the Opposition amendment passed on Third Reading in the Lords on protecting low incidence SEN services. The point made by the hon. Member for Gedling about the need to define exactly what those services are was spot on. It is really important that we get a clear definition, either today or on Monday, as the Bill goes through this House.
	My final point concerns children receiving central SEN services. Children with high levels of need will tend to have statements, so the idea that the money follows the pupil and goes to the schools is very important. In my constituency, we have a school called Addington high, which has an excellent unit for children with autism, and most of the children there will have a statement. It is right, therefore, that the money goes to the school, but clearly, as some of my hon. Friends have said, where local authorities are providing services, much will depend on the value that schools place on those services. If they are good services and the local authority is doing a good job, it seems likely that any academy that takes over will want to purchase those services.
	The hon. Member for Gedling was right to raise the issues before us, because further clarity is required in certain areas. However, I do not support the amendment, because I am not sure that it directly addresses some of his points. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's winding-up speech.

Guy Opperman: I will be brief as well. Many would have liked to speak in this debate, but time is short. I pay tribute to today's maiden speeches, particularly that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). Together, the two of us represent 2,500 square miles-it would cover several countries. He has walked across his, I have attempted to ride across mine, and I can assure hon. Members that I prefer my form of transport. Anyway, he is making great steps and it is great to have him as my neighbour. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who is also my neighbour-we cover so much of the north! She and I have worked for many years in special educational needs, and she spoke eloquently and with great force about the issues.
	I look at things from a different angle, having represented local authorities and individual applicants for some 15 to 20 years in special educational needs tribunals and SENDISTs-special educational needs and disability tribunals. I have seen all manner of proposals put forward. In particular, I have represented the Hillingdon association of secondary heads, which is known by the acronym HASH, which is appropriate for all the 1960s head teachers.
	I want to make three points. First, I welcome the fact that the Minister indicated at the outset that the code of practice would be revised and, as I understood it, that that would be legislated for in this House. I hope that that will take place in September, or at the earlier possible opportunity, because the whole problem with this debate is that, as far as an assessment of special educational needs is concerned, there is a parallel process. In that respect, I urge hon. Members to read the comments of Lord Baker of Dorking, who said in another place:
	"What is left for the LEA to do...? I will be even more ambitious...about special education, because I think that it is the one role that should be left quite specifically to LEAs."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 519.]
	The proposal at present is that the LEA will not be taking over, and that the matter will go first to the Young People's Learning Agency and then, in theory, to the Secretary of State.

Pat Glass: No doubt the Minister will confirm this for me, but I understand that the YPLA is the rump of what was the Learning and Skills Council. If that is the case, does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns about that? I am not aware that the Learning and Skills Council has the level of SEN expertise needed to deliver on some of the things that we are discussing.

Guy Opperman: I hesitate to say that I agree absolutely, but I have great sympathy with the hon. Lady's argument, because the local education authority will have all the educational psychologists and other areas of expertise that are required in these processes. I would question whether the alternative provision exists; indeed, I would go further than that. Everyone who has done a SENDIST case, running it through the myriad reports, will know the tremendous difficulty that exists in obtaining the right level of reports and presentation to push the thing forward. I would suggest that if people have to go to the Secretary of State, things will take much longer and be much more complicated. I return to the point that this is not me rebelling; I am just saying that the assertions of the founder of all these kinds of reforms-Lord Baker of Dorking-was clear at the outset of this process that we should keep it very simple and put the matter to the LEA, because it will be best capable of dealing with it.
	I accept what the Minister said when clarifying the point approximately 15 minutes ago. He said that there is always a duty to ensure that the needs are met. That is entirely true, but anybody who does SENDIST work will know that there is a parallel duty to perform with the financial resources available. The complication is that there are genuine concerns that the financial resources will not necessarily be available in the processes that are being proposed. That particularly applies where there are special educational needs in more rural areas such as mine, where we have 1,200 square miles to cover, catchment areas the size of the M25 and an ability to provide for those needs, along with the necessary rural transport. However, I have not heard sufficient clarification that those rural transport needs will be accommodated as part of the Bill.
	Briefly, let me finish by saying that I do not support the amendment, but I hope that we will receive a great deal of further explanation.

John Hayes: We have had a long and interesting debate on this subject, have we not, Mr Evans? It has been a good-natured debate too, with high-quality contributions by hon. Members from across the Committee, who have drawn on their extensive experience and expertise. I defer to those hon. Members who have that professional expertise-expertise that they have been able to articulate today in a way that has shown the House and this Committee at its best, as was made clear in his generous contribution by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who I can confirm is a stallion, by the way. [Hon. Members: "How do you know?"] Because I have known him for a very long time, and I know that his reputation precedes him.
	On the subject of my friends on the Opposition Benches, I count the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) as a friend, and I have not yet had the chance to congratulate his daughter, Hattie, on her eighth birthday yesterday. I shall do so now, because I want to get it into  Ha nsard . In addition, I want to mention that he has a number of other children and I hope that they enjoy "Toy Story 3" when they go to see it on Sunday. Moving on! Time is short.
	The amendment would have the effect that, before making any payments under an academy agreement, the Secretary of State would have to assess the impact on local authority-funded SEN services of a new academy or an academy conversion before deciding funding levels for such academies. I had thought that I would have to speak for longer on this subject in order to cover it in considerable detail. I have before me the Balfour Act and the Education Act 1944, along with every other significant education Act at my disposal. It is a sad fact that I will not be able to draw on them, but in the few remarks that I will make, I shall try to answer the salient questions posed by hon. Members.
	The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said that there was no definition of special educational needs. They are, however, defined in some detail in section 312 of the Education Act 1996. I will not go into those details now, but the Bill will not change them at all; that definition will remain in place and it is important.
	The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) spoke about autism, and-I say this from the heart-gave a rather moving account of his experience of parents dealing with the challenges of special educational needs. Academies will be under the same obligations as other schools in respect of special educational needs. As I said to him earlier, academies are already providing evidence that they are looking at these matters with appropriate diligence. The Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College academy has an autism unit, for example, of which other schools are taking advantage. However, I heard what the hon. Gentleman said today, and we will ensure in our study of special educational needs in the Green Paper that autism receives the particular attention it deserves. I have worked closely with the Lincolnshire Autistic Society, and I know of the good work done by that society and others. The hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House by raising that matter today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) asked two specific questions. Yes, although we intend to convert special schools into academies, we understand that that will need to be done on a considered and measured basis. We need to do work on the issue of funding in particular, and we will do so before the conversions take place. She also asked about the role of the health service in respect of children and young people with SEN. Primary care trusts contribute to the costs of individual placements as well as supporting pupils. Their responsibility is to the whole population, however, so that funding should be unaffected. The costs of non-maintained special schools remain with the local authority, and none of that budget will be transferred to the academies.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee, asked a number of questions. I have dealt with the question of the Secretary of State's responsibilities. I can confirm that, as he suggested, the YPLA will be instrumental in ensuring that those responsibilities are carried out. A number of hon. Members asked how a parent could complain if an academy did not meet a child's special educational needs. That was a theme that emerged implicitly throughout the debate.
	Let me make it clear. An academy must have a clear complaints process, and a parent who wished to complain would have to be dealt with in line with that process. If that complaint were not satisfied, the YPLA would enforce the obligations in the funding agreement. If that does not prove satisfactory, a complaint about the YPLA can be directed to the Secretary of State, who will enforce those obligations in the courts if necessary.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made a number of points about parents who, he said, would not have the wherewithal required. He said that these things were all very well in theory. I spoke earlier about redistributing advantage in society. I am very conscious of the need for us to get the statementing process right, given how often it disadvantages parents in that position.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), the Minister of State, Department for Education-with whom I have worked hand in glove in the House for many years-will be looking closely at the whole issue of statementing. We understand some of the concern that has been expressed. It is crucial for parents of the kind described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to be dealt with appropriately, fairly and reasonably, rather than being bemused and bewildered by a process that is bureaucratic and insensitive to their circumstances.
	The amendment raises issues similar to those that were raised in another place. As Members have pointed out, the main issue is the fear that an increasing number of academy conversions will render local education authorities unable to maintain the level of centrally funded services that they currently offer. That fear is not without grounds, and I entirely agree that we must consider it. I am also convinced, however, that we will have time in which to do so. The number of schools that will convert in September will not be large enough to have a significant impact on local authority services.
	I see the hon. Member for Gedling egging me on, stallion-like, but I have a number of other things to say which I hope will satisfy him.
	Of course some local authorities already have a majority of secondary schools as academies. Those academies were approved by the last Government, who funded academies in the same way as the current Government intend to fund them. However, we also intend to review funding from 2011 onwards. We will be working closely with local authorities and other partners, and I can confirm that we will give specific consideration to the funding of SEN services. That consideration will be in addition to the Green Paper that I mentioned earlier. The work will take place over the autumn, and as my noble Friend Lord Hill, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, said yesterday, we have instructed officials to ensure that the Special Educational Consortium is involved in the work.
	We are committed to ensuring that children with special needs in both the maintained and the academy sectors receive the services that they require and, indeed, deserve. My commitment to children with special educational needs stretches a long way back. As a member of the Government, I will do nothing that would act to their detriment, and we as a Government will do nothing in respect of the academies programme that would disadvantage them or the people who care for them in any way. I am pleased to be able to put that on the record.

Barry Gardiner: I am sure that the whole Committee will welcome the Minister's assurance, but he also mentioned a review of funding in 2011. Can he tell us what impact that might have on the commitment in the Bill that the funding agreement will last for at least seven years? How will the two interact?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind what I said a moment ago. We would not expect special schools to be in the first tranche of academies, and we will review the funding before those schools become academies. That is entirely consistent with the Bill. We hope that when the schools have become academies the arrangements will be in place, and the seven-year period will kick in after that.
	We have also set up an advisory group to help us to work through, in particular, issues relating to SEN and special schools. It is because we want to use the practical expertise in the sector that the group includes heads and governors from special schools-including the non-maintained sector-and mainstream schools with specialist units, as well as local authority representation at officer and political level. As Lord Hill said in another place, the Government undertake to monitor the impact of the increasing number of academies on local authority SEN services and will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that adjustments to their funding with respect to the academies properly reflect their changing responsibilities. Make no mistake: local authorities will continue to have key responsibilities in respect of SEN, including their responsibility to statement children. We intend to ensure that that is properly funded.
	Officials will also be working with organisations such as the National Sensory Impairment Partnership on this matter. Where particular issues arise, I hope to reassure Members by committing to consider very carefully the local authority representations that I have just mentioned and, indeed, the contributions from both sides of the House during the Committee. I entirely understand what the hon. Member for Gedling said about Bills being improved by Ministers listening closely and carefully to Members of this House and that is very much the spirit that imbues this coalition Government.
	We will commit to making adjustments to local authority funding arrangements to ensure fairness; for example, local authorities can ask us to take account of SEN units housed in maintained schools so that funding for such units does not form part of the resources distributed to academies. That point was also raised by the hon. Member for Gedling.
	Members will be aware that an amendment was made in the other place to provide safeguards-indeed, the hon. Member for Gedling has referred to it repeatedly both today and yesterday-for the provision of children with SEN. I can confirm that we have accepted the amendment and that we intend to take the necessary steps to ensure that SEN children are protected as the noble Lords intended.
	On the other questions that I have not yet answered in this all too short peroration-I am not suggesting for a minute that all questions do not deserve an answer- [ Interruption. ] I can hear what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) is saying. I described him earlier as my friend; he is now paying me back.
	The hon. Member for Gedling asked about the definition of low incidence SEN. The Department has commissioned a report on low incidence needs and the project specification lists definitions. We are determined to ensure that the new provisions in the Bill are reflected in the SEN code of practice, which has always been a fundamental part of implementing policy.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to looked-after children. Funding for looked-after children is, as he knows, the responsibility of the education authority, and funding for educational psychologists too remains with the local authority and does not transfer to the academy. Both are outside the schools budget. I accept entirely the point about the need to retain the quality and quantity of peripatetic services. I am confident that academies will purchase those services and will face up to the responsibilities that Members across the House have made clear are so close to the intentions of those who value the role of teachers, respect the wishes of parents and regard seriously the needs of special needs children.
	The admissions code requires all schools, including academies, to give priority to looked-after children when making decisions as to which children to admit. That does not change as a result of the Bill. I can commit today to including within the academy model funding agreement a requirement for all academies to have a designated teacher with responsibility for looked-after children. That comes as a result of overtures made outside the House and of the comments made from both sides within the House. The law relating to governing bodies' obligations relating to SEN is in part IV of the Education Act 1996. The code of practice must also be taken into account. The academy funding agreement applies these obligations to academies, and we are absolutely sure and certain that that will not change. The hon. Member for Gedling also raised issues about how these things will develop over time. Of course it is true that we will need to consider how they develop and what changes will need to be made as a result.
	Let me conclude, however, because I do not want to delay the House too long. I do not want to stretch your indulgence to its famous but limited degree, Mr Evans, and I do not want to go further than my colleagues would wish in making these immensely generous concessions to the hon. Gentleman, but none the less I want to say the following. I have enjoyed the debate not merely because it has been a good example of Parliament in action, but because it has highlighted the very wide measure of agreement that exists between the Front Benches and throughout the Chamber about the significance of special needs provision and the importance of maintaining it. The Government are absolutely determined to do that in the interests of special needs children and their parents, whatever structures we put in place.
	On that basis I assume that because we have been so reasonable and generous, the hon. Gentleman will rush to his feet in a moment and beg to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Vernon Coaker: I agree very much with the Minister that this has been an excellent, high-quality debate. There were many contributions, and may I begin by apologising to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for not being present for his maiden speech? I understand, however, that it was excellent, and I am sure he will be a worthy replacement for a friend of ours, Angela Smith. I wish him well in Parliament, and we look forward to hearing further contributions from him.
	I was not quite sure whether the contribution of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) was a second maiden speech or a maiden, but although he did not agree with me, I still thought it was a reasonable speech, if that makes sense.  [Interruption.] No, I say in all sincerity that it was a good speech. Tribute was paid to his predecessor, David Maclean, by the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), and we all had great admiration for the way in which he battled against some of the difficulties he faced. I am sure the new hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will be a worthy addition to the House and I wish him well.
	I want to pay tribute to some of the other speeches made, particularly that by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). Many Members have paid tribute to her contribution. Her speech was not only very well informed, but very moving. The power of the stories that Members can bring to the House from our experience as professionals outside it makes a huge difference, and there was great credibility in what she said and we all learned from her remarks. I am sure we will continue to benefit from her contributions as she pursues her parliamentary career. I also thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for his generous remarks about my approach and for the conversations we have had about many of the matters we have been discussing today.
	I am also very grateful to the Minister for his reply. It is clear that the Government are thinking of making a number of significant changes-I do not want to use the word "concessions" as that makes it sound as if there was a battle-on the issue under discussion as a consequence not only of this debate, but of contributions outside the Chamber. I have to say that some of the concessions-the changes-that are now being made ought to have been made before. I am not trying to be churlish; I am saying that because these are such important matters. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the evidence base for the Bill-the impact assessment and the equalities impact assessment-really is not good enough, given the Bill's importance. These are essential documents that go alongside a Government Bill. I say to the Minister and his colleagues that they are extremely important documents because they are the evidence base on which Government legislation is supposed to be based. The Chair of the Select Committee was harsher than I was, but I must say that those documents did leave quite a bit to be desired.
	We are all pleased to hear about the Green Paper, the welcome review of SEN funding for academies, and the Minister's commitment to examine the role of local authorities and to ensure that their role is properly recognised in the system as things progress. There was also a specific recognition of one of the points raised. I am not saying that this happened because of the point I raised, but I did say that the model funding agreement that had been published did not contain a requirement for a teacher in the academies to be responsible for children in care, and the Minister responded by saying that that will be changed. That, too, is very welcome.
	It would be churlish of me not to say that significant change has been made as we have progressed through our consideration of the Bill, and that is very welcome. The amendment seeks to push the Government to recognise that important problems remain in how this structure has been set up. The definition of low incidence SEN and low incidence disability is fundamental to the Bill, but we are passing a piece of legislation that contains no definition of that.
	As Members from across the House have said, that is a recipe for confusion, litigation and lawyers, because how is a local authority, an academy or whoever supposed to know whether they are meeting the requirements of the legislation, given that we currently have no criteria for determining that? I know that the Minister has given a commitment for this to be contained in codes of practice and in other places. In the spirit of trying to be helpful, may I say that it is essential that that kind of clarity is provided in respect of legislation, particularly with something that is such a key part of the Bill? I know that he will take that on board and take it forward.
	The Minister has tried to address the other aspect of what our amendment was trying to ensure, but confusion remains as to what the funding will mean for individual schools and what it will mean for the amount of funding that is left for local authorities in terms of that central provision, which will be essential. Confusion also remains about the co-ordinating role in order to ensure that all of our young people get the support that they need. How the Secretary of State is supposed to do that from the centre right down to school level is a real problem, given that the Young People's Learning Agency is supposed to be the vehicle by which academies are held to account. The YPLA is a new body, and it has no experience of dealing with special needs or of this provision. So to rely upon it as the vehicle or body that will try to ensure that the Secretary of State is informed about whether an academy is appropriately using the money that it gets to support children with SEN is simply a wish rather than something that the Government have evidence to demonstrate will actually work.
	This has been a hugely important debate, and the Government have made some significant concessions. It is a shame that we cannot amend the Bill to give it the legislative and statutory force necessary to give all of us the reassurance that we need. However, given the Minister's concessions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Transfer of school surpluses

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment 61, page 5, line 22, leave out from 'proprietor' to end of line 23 and insert 'to appeal to a Local Commissioner'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 62, page 5, line 25, leave out 'review' and insert 'appeal'.
	Amendment 63, page 5, line 26, leave out 'review' and insert 'appeal'.
	Amendment 64, page 5, line 43, at end insert-
	'"Local Commissioner" has the meaning given by section 23 of the Local Government Act 1974.'.

Iain Wright: I begin by paying tribute to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). I class him as a good friend. He is a kind and courteous man and I am sure that my daughter Hattie will be very pleased that she has been mentioned in the House again. He is more than welcome to join us for "Toy Story 3"-indeed, I see him as the Buzz Lightyear of the coalition Government. To infinity and beyond!
	May I clarify a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who was in the Chamber assiduously this afternoon, until I got up, when he left? He mentioned that his area produces angels, and in many respects he is right-Gateshead is a fantastic place-but I think that he was referring to the angel of the north, which is a strong and proud icon of our region of the north-east, and I should point out to the Committee that the angel of the north was fabricated in Hartlepool. That is an important point.
	I shall be brief, because there is not a lot of time left and there is a lot of work still to do. It was very important that we had considerable debates on Building Schools for the Future and on special educational needs. Clause 7 requires that where the Secretary of State approves a maintained school's application to become an academy, the local authority must determine whether, immediately before the conversion date, the school has a surplus and, if so, the amount of the surplus. Once that is done, the local authority must pay the surplus over to the proprietor of the academy.
	Subsection (4) states that regulations may be brought forward on how the payment of any identified surplus could be made and subsection (5) lists what those regulations can include. An important part of those regulations would be the manner in which the proprietor of the academy can apply to the Secretary of State for a review of the determinations. I argued in Committee last night that the nature of the Bill is to force schools to consider that their most important relationship is not with local parents or pupils but the Secretary of State.
	This is a centralising Bill that concentrates power and decisions into the office of the Secretary of State. The Opposition think that there should be more independence from Whitehall and more power for local people, which could include the proprietor of the academy. On that basis, amendment 61 would replace the idea of the proprietor going directly to the Secretary of State to ask for a review and allow the owner of the new academy to appeal to a local commissioner.
	Amendment 64 would make it clear that the term "local commissioner" has the same meaning as that given by section 23 of the Local Government Act 1974, which essentially means the local government ombudsman. That is a well-recognised route for conducting investigations into local matters and gives a degree of impartiality and independence because the local commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We think that the Secretary of State for Education, under the provisions in the Bill, is responsible for a number of things, namely entering into an academy arrangement, making an academy order and reviewing the transfer of school circumstances among other things. There does not seem to be any effective challenge to the single authority of the Secretary of State, which is one reason why we have tabled the amendments.
	The inclusion of the word "review" is also somewhat vague and does not give reassurance and confidence to the proprietor of the academy, or to anybody else for that matter, that a proper procedure will be followed. Amendments 62 and 63 would strengthen the wording of the Bill by leaving out the word "review" and inserting the word "appeal", which gives a sense, in our opinion, that a proper and transparent process must be adhered to. The amendments would not increase any bureaucratic burden on any interested party, but they would provide a degree of certainty and reassurance for stakeholders, particularly the proprietor of the new academy. For that reason, I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendments, and I commend them to the Committee.

Tim Loughton: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. These four amendments have been grouped together because they concern the appeal procedure. It is our policy that a maintained school that converts to academy status should take with it any funds that it has accumulated in previous years. I do not think that that is news to the shadow Minister. Schools might have earmarked such funds for particular purposes and we would not want them to be prevented from carrying out their plans as a consequence of their conversion to academy status. The Bill therefore makes provision for that and for an academy to appeal to the Secretary of State, as we see fit, where it believes that the local authority has wrongly calculated the appropriate amount.
	The Opposition's amendments would change the whole appeal process so that the academy would appeal to the local government ombudsman rather than the Secretary of State. I think the shadow Minister characterised the measure as being centralising rather than localising, but we do not believe that what the Opposition suggest is appropriate. We have published draft regulations to enable hon. Members to see the Government's intentions in this regard. The draft regulations state that the local authority would have to determine, within three months of the conversion date, whether the school had a surplus immediately prior to the conversion date and, if so, the level of that surplus. That is consistent with the usual period for finalising local authority accounts at the end of the financial year and should give sufficient time to calculate accruals and commitments accurately. If the academy's proprietor did not agree with the determination, they would have one month from being informed of the determination to apply to the Secretary of State for a review. On receiving such an application, the Secretary of State would have three months in which to determine whether the school had a surplus and, if so, the amount of that surplus, and to inform the academy's proprietor and the local authority of those determinations.
	If there has been a review, the local authority must pay over any surplus within a month of being informed of the Secretary of State's determination. If there is no review, the authority would have to pay over any surplus within one month of either the proprietor informing the authority that they agreed with the determination or at the end of the period in which the proprietor may apply for review-whichever is earlier. That is very clear.

Iain Wright: Will the Minister clarify something? If a decision is made by the Secretary of State following a review, would the proprietor of the academy have a right to appeal that decision?

Tim Loughton: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, there is a further explanation that might satisfy him.
	Decisions regarding financial disputes of this kind should rest with the Secretary of State, as they do currently. The Secretary of State is responsible for making a decision when the local authority and schools forum disagree about the operation of the minimum funding guarantee or about the level of central expenditure retained by the local authority in the schools budget. The Secretary of State is also able to approve additional arrangements when local authorities request to have school finance regulations disapplied and so is well used to evaluating these issues.
	What is proposed would be an unnecessary extension of the role of the local government ombudsman, whose role is to deal with complaints from members of the public about local authorities rather than to deal with disputes between two publicly funded bodies about the detail of financial accounts. We do not think it appropriate for that role to lie with the ombudsman. Dealing with that sort of dispute is already an established part of the Secretary of State's role. On that basis, we do not think that the amendments are necessary and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment

Iain Wright: I thank the Minister for clarifying the situation, but I still am not entirely certain about the right to appeal. If a review had taken place and the proprietor was still unhappy with the situation, would they be able to appeal again to the Secretary of State or an independent body? We have suggested that they could appeal to the local government ombudsman, but there could be other routes; we are quite flexible about that. Will the Minister clarify that?

Tim Loughton: I thought I had made this clear, but obviously I have not. The Secretary of State's decision is final, so the Secretary of State will be the final arbiter.

Iain Wright: I thank the Minister for confirming that. My fundamental concern about this aspect of the Bill remains the same, namely that it seems to be a very centralising Bill. It diverts the relationship away from a school thinking about local stakeholders, and having a good, constructive partnership and collaborative arrangement with local people, pupils, staff and so on, and towards having a direct relationship with the Secretary of State. I thought that was contrary to what the coalition Government would want to do with regard to empowering local people. In that respect, I remain unhappy.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is there not a problem with the lack of accountability of the Secretary of State? The Secretary of State effectively approves the transfer of funds between the local authority and the academy, in one way or another. If there is a dispute, it is resolved by the Secretary of State, who gave his approval in the first place. There is no obvious transparency in the system, as far as the Secretary of State is concerned, and it is not obvious where one goes if either party simply does not accept the Secretary of State's decision.

Iain Wright: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is keen to expand academies as quickly as possible, so he has a vested interest in making sure that that happens. Then there is the decision on the transfer of surpluses; as my hon. Friend says, the Secretary of State is the final judge and jury on that issue. There is an inherent conflict of interest between various bodies, and I am concerned about that. There is a general concern about the complete lack of consultation with local stakeholders on the provisions, and I remain concerned about that.

Tim Loughton: To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), there are many areas of schools business where the final decision will remain with the Secretary of State, and that is proper, but remember that the Secretary of State needs to have regard not just to the future and the financial viability of academies, but to the sustainability of other schools, which will continue to be administered through local education authorities. The Secretary of State is interested not just in academies, but in all schools.

Iain Wright: I thank the Minister for his contribution. I am keen for him to intervene again, because I still think that the word "review" is very vague. It does not set out in any degree what the process would be, so that the proprietor of the academy could be reassured that appropriate processes had taken place. Our amendments 62 and 63 would tighten up the language of the Bill. They would ensure that there was not a review, to use that broad, somewhat ambiguous word, but an appeal. That would help to clarify certain matters in the Bill. I would be happy for the Minister to respond further on that point.

Dan Rogerson: I am intrigued by this role reversal: the hon. Gentleman is standing up for the proprietor of the academy against the local authority in this instance. It seems a reversal of the way in which the arguments have gone throughout the day. It strikes me that we are talking about a one-off instance, not a continuing relationship. Once the decision has been made, the academy is in the area, doing things with the local community. On his point about the provisions being a centralising measure, what he describes may not happen in every case, and the measure is a one-off.

Iain Wright: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and reasonable point. I am anxious to proceed with business; I want to put it on the record that that is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and I did not press amendment 71 to a vote. I understand what the Minister is saying, but I still think that this is a centralising Bill. The comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) put the matter in a wider context. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment 76, page 5, line 34, leave out from 'time' to end of line 36 and insert
	'after deducting from any amount made available by a local authority to the school's governing body (under section 50 of SSFA 1998 or otherwise) that has not been spent by the governing body or the headteacher, all existing and contingent liabilities not transferring to the Academy under a property transfer scheme (including any liabilities of the local authority incurred on behalf of the school), there is a net amount available.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 66, in clause 8, in page 6, line 22, leave out 'property, rights and liabilities' and insert 'property and rights'.

Iain Wright: As I mentioned earlier, clauses 7 and 8 are significant elements of the Bill; they change dramatically the current situation on the transfer of school surpluses and property. It is worth reiterating the point that I made about clause 7. Clause 7(2) requires that when the Secretary of State approves a maintained school's application to become an academy,
	"The local authority must determine...whether, immediately before the conversion date, the school has a surplus, and...if so, the amount of that surplus."
	Under clause 7(3), once that is done the local authority must pay the surplus over to the proprietor of the academy. As I said earlier, that represents a fundamental change to the current landscape, as at the moment surpluses of closing schools remain with the local authority. That includes cases in which an existing school is closed to become an academy.
	A school might have built up a surplus for many reasons. Shared facilities might generate an income, for example, or a local authority or other party might have provided additional funding for work in the community and the maintained school might have been encouraged to build up a surplus to ensure that the new community facility could be built or established. That has certainly happened in my constituency, and I am sure that it has happened in other Members' as well. In Hartlepool, a sports centre has been built on the estate of a particular school, through increased funding from various sources and surpluses held by that school. The understanding is that it will be used by other schools and by community groups.
	Under the terms of the Bill as it stands, in such a situation the surplus would be transferred to the new academy, and any benefit to the wider community that was originally envisaged-the original purpose of the surpluses-would be lost. What reassurances can the Minister give to ensure that that does not happen? What is the Minister doing to stop a situation in which, somewhat late in the process, a school that has built up surpluses and is anticipating the building of a new community or shared facility on its estate, following negotiations with the local authority, then decides to convert to an academy?
	That could happen without real consultation, but the school would hold on to those surpluses. The issue comes back to unilateral decisions that fail to take into account the wider community and collaboration between schools and the local education authority. In essence, the amendment tries to probe the Minister by asking what checks and balances he will insert into clause 7 to ensure that such surpluses are identified as appropriate and constitute value for money.

Graham Stuart: Why would a school that had built up such surpluses to provide a community facility for joint use suddenly wish to deviate from that when it sought to become an academy? I am not saying that that would be impossible, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that it would be the norm.

Iain Wright: I am not suggesting at all that that would be the norm, but we could provide a control mechanism in the legislation on this issue, to tighten up the existing provision. We are not suggesting that the transfer of surpluses should not take place, but wider circumstances might be considered that could prove detrimental to neighbouring schools.
	The whole Committee would agree with the need to see transparency and value for money in all aspects involving public money and public assets. To respond to the Chair of the Education Committee, I should say that, essentially, clause 7 moves taxpayers' money from the public sector to the private sector. What controls is the Minister proposing to ensure that that is subject to appropriate balance, scrutiny, transparency and probity?

Graham Stuart: It is surely unfair to say that the clause moves resources to the private sector. We are talking about an independent state school, but it would still be a state school and not part of the private sector. Yesterday evening, the hon. Gentleman made a desperate effort to change the wording to "free market schools" rather than the wording in his amendment; that suggested more political desperation than is the norm with him.

Iain Wright: I thank the Chair of the Education Committee and I entirely understand his point. Perhaps I should moderate my language in Committee. However, the point is essentially the same: how do we ensure that local taxpayers get good value for money? Like the equalities impact assessment, the impact assessment of the Bill is somewhat vague and light on detail. It states:
	"Total one-off costs incurred by schools converting to an academy are estimated to be an average £78k including VAT.
	Since the VAT costs are a transfer payment from DoE to HMRC, they are not economic costs. The total economic costs per conversion to academy are therefore £66k.
	However, there is scope for Academies meeting these costs from within their existing balances which could reduce the cost to DFE to as little as £25,000 per Academy."
	Will the Minister outline the evidence base for this? No mention whatever is made of the transfer of surpluses in this regard. In preparing for the Bill and with regard to the impact assessment, what work has been done in relation to surpluses that could be transferred to the academy? I would be interested in any information that he could provide about that.
	The purpose of amendment 76 is to address those concerns about transparency and accountability and to try to ensure that there is an appropriate process.

Dan Rogerson: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman intends to discuss amendment 66, which is grouped with amendment 76. I may be misreading those amendments, but as I understand it, they are contradictory, because one of them seeks to remove liability while the other seeks to offset liabilities and surpluses. What is the thinking behind that?

Iain Wright: I will come to that, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the amendments are not contradictory-they are trying to address a similar problem and to ensure that we can resolve this issue.
	Amendment 76 would ensure that all existing and contingent liabilities, including any liabilities that have been incurred on behalf of the school by the local authority, should also be considered. In this context, I take the contingent liability to mean a possible obligation that arises from past events and whose existence will be confirmed only by the occurrence of one or more uncertain future events not wholly within the existing school's control. An example could be outstanding legal cases. We discussed in Committee last night the possibility of legal challenge from staff who might not have had the opportunity or the time to consider properly the TUPE arrangements of moving from a maintained school to an academy-a point that has been well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). That might be considered a possible contingent liability.
	Another example, which has been discussed this afternoon, could be any liabilities arising under current private finance initiative arrangements. We had an interesting debate about amendment 70, with particular regard to PFI. One of the risks is that a local authority could have a potential 25-year period of liabilities arising from PFI, and converting a maintained school to an academy means that the academy has no way of being liable for that payment over that quarter of a century. What reassurance can the Minister give in that regard?

Graham Stuart: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to TUPE and the speech last night by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who was passionate about the uncertainty that could beset many employees of schools? Will he, as the Minister did, but from his side of the House, put their minds at rest? Can he confirm that when a school converts and becomes an academy, the staff will have no reason to believe that they will have any different conditions, and that it is therefore hard to see exactly what great liabilities could be in store in that transfer?

Iain Wright: I am not suggesting that there would automatically be any sort of change or reduction in terms and conditions. However, the freedoms and flexibilities, and the movement away from national terms and conditions and pay scales, could provide a degree of anxiety for staff, particularly low-paid staff who may have given good and loyal service to the local education authority for many years. For example, staff might think that they have had insufficient time to consider what converting to an academy might mean, and therefore, in conjunction with the union, take their employer to a tribunal. Perhaps that should be considered as part of a contingent liability. We need to ensure that all possible scenarios have been considered when taking into account the transfer of surpluses.
	Clause 8 allows for the transfer of other property, and amendment 66 would remove the word "liabilities" from subsection (5)(b), which refers to the apportionment of properties, rights and liabilities. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), the reasoning behind the amendment is similar to the point that I made earlier about contingent liabilities. I reiterate that there is a particular concern about arrangements such as those under the private finance initiative regarding the transfer of liabilities, and the potential for them to be apportioned between the local authority and a new academy. In a PFI arrangement with 25 years of payments still to go, we must ask how appropriate costs should be so apportioned, and the amendment is an attempt to resolve that question.
	We reason that if an academy is to operate as an independent school with full autonomy and freedom from the local authority, it should be responsible for full liability under any PFI arrangement in respect of the school. That seems balanced and fair, and I ask the Minister whether he is opposed to it.
	We seek reassurance from the Minister that local authorities, which will face immense financial pressures over the next few years, with enormous potential cuts and pressures from changing social circumstances such as the ageing population, will not be liable for the debts of schools that have transferred as well as having to cover the costs of central services such as payroll, human resources and other infrastructure that they were, and will be, providing to maintained schools. I hope that he can provide that reassurance, and I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Tim Loughton: I seek to provide the shadow Minister with some reassurances on the various concerns that he has raised about surpluses. I support his objective that the whole system should be transparent and properly accountable. I think he is perhaps unduly concerned, but he is right to tease out some more information through what I believe are probing amendments. I shall address them in order and then turn to his points on the PFI.
	Amendment 76 would widen the definition of the surplus to take account of all liabilities not being transferred to an academy, including any liabilities that a local authority incurred on behalf of a school. In calculating the surplus, local authorities will follow normal accounting procedures and take into account expenditure in respect of which work has been done or goods received but invoices have not yet been paid. As we see the new converters as continuing schools, we will seek to ensure that local authorities are not left to fund any remaining costs that would otherwise have been charged to the school's budget-that is only fair. If a school has ongoing commitments such as an internal loan, we will expect it to continue those payments and the local authority to accept that.
	For the same reason, it would not be appropriate to offset against the surplus any liabilities incurred by the local authority on behalf of the school that would not otherwise have been charged against the school's budget. We understand that closing the old school's accounts can be a lengthy process, and that authorities are concerned that they might pay over a final cash sum to the academy in accordance with the regulations, only to be left later with outstanding bills without any funding, which would not be fair.
	We are drafting guidance on the calculation of surpluses, which I hope will give the hon. Gentleman the assurances he seeks. It will cover debtors and creditors, bank accounts and internal loans and is being developed with partners including the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. There is also a model commercial transfer agreement for adoption by the school's governing body, the academy and the local authority, which will deal with possibilities such as he described.

Iain Wright: I thank the Minister for his clarification and welcome the fact that guidance will be provided. Can he give us any reassurance about the status of that guidance? Will it be, say, in secondary legislation subject to a negative resolution of the House, or will it be simply a press release on the Department's website?

Tim Loughton: I do not know. It is right for the hon. Gentleman to ask-we will give him the information as soon as possible. It is a policy matter and, in the interests of transparency and accountability, we will ensure that we keep him informed of how the guidance is being worked up, unless I am told something while I am on my feet.
	We expect all those matters to be agreed between the local authority and the governing body before conversion, and for the new academy to work within that agreement. The power to make a scheme under clause 8 is a reserve power for the Secretary of State to exercise in the absence of agreement, to ensure that liabilities are appropriately covered.
	In a similar vein, amendment 66 attempts to remove the Secretary of State's ability in clause 8 to apportion liabilities when considering a property transfer to an academy company. To revert to the question of the hon. Member for Hartlepool, the guidance will be non-statutory.
	Under clause 8, the Secretary of State has the power to make a scheme to transfer the property of a maintained school, about which an academy order has been made. The scheme may include any liabilities of the school. It may provide for their transfer to the proprietor of the academy that replaces the school, and that will be the legal entity-an academy trust-that enters into a funding agreement with the Secretary of State.
	As with the agreement between academies and local authorities on the academies surplus, I expect that, in the majority of cases, property, rights and liabilities would transfer to the academy by mutual agreement, without any need for the Secretary of State's intervention, and there would not generally be any need to apportion liabilities between the school and the academy. However, that might be necessary in relation to contractual liabilities, where it would not be fair for the academy to take the burden of liabilities incurred when the school was a maintained school. A good example of that might be insurance contracts, when it would often be appropriate for the liability for personal injuries to remain with the local authority for the period before conversion, and for the academy to take them from the point of conversion, or other contracts, when it would not be fair for the academy to take responsibility for the actions of its predecessor. That is normal practice in other such arrangements.
	That will depend, of course, on the circumstances of the transfer: it may be much fairer if the school is a converter by application of the governing body than if it is a new academy replacing one eligible for intervention. However, the provisions of the clause need to cater for all those situations. We think that they do.
	It is important that the Secretary of State can transfer appropriate liabilities in any transfer scheme and share out existing and future liabilities in a fair way. On that basis, we do not think that the amendments are necessary.
	The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about PFI. In a PFI scheme, a local authority typically enters into a contract with a PFI contractor, under which the latter agrees to build a school and keep it in good condition for 25 years, and often to provide additional services such as catering and maintenance during that period. During that 25-year period, the authority has several obligations, for example, making monthly payments to the PFI contractor and not wilfully impeding the contractor and its subcontractors in the performance of their obligations. If the authority does not comply with its obligations, the PFI contractor can claim damages and ultimately terminate the contract and receive compensation. The value of a PFI contract is typically tens or hundreds of millions of pounds. The worst case scenario, in the event of any breach of contract, is that the authority would have to compensate the PFI contractor for the full value of the contract.
	How, therefore, are we handling PFI for converting schools? We will not attempt to buy schools out of a PFI contract-that could cost many millions of pounds for each school and would not represent good value for money. Instead, the school remains in the PFI contract and the Department indemnifies the local authority against any losses that it might incur as a result of any act or omission of the academy trust that now occupies the land and buildings. That indemnity is necessary because authorities do not have the power to ensure that the academy trusts will not act in such a way as places the authority in breach of the terms of the PFI contract.
	Our approach ensures that local authorities are financially no better or worse off as a result of a conversion, and those arrangements are set out in legally binding agreements that need to be negotiated between the Department, the local authority and the academy trust. I hope that that gives some assurance on the hon. Gentleman's specific questions about PFI.

Iain Wright: That sounds like a potential nightmare, and an awful lot of work needs to be done on it. The impact assessment mentions the negotiations between the DFE and DCLG only very briefly. What further information and clarity can the Minister give the Committee to ensure that good cross-departmental work is done so that local authorities are not penalised financially?

Tim Loughton: Such negotiations are not only between the DFE and DCLG; it is also a Treasury matter. We have had discussions involving those parties. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and in ongoing discussions, we will take note of his point. However, I think he is unduly concerned. He quite rightly said that it is a complicated matter, but we have looked at the PFI scenario to ensure that there are no contingent liabilities that could queer the pitch for the authorities or academies involved. The Government believe that amendments 76 and 66 are unnecessary. It is appropriate that he has used them as probing amendments, but on the basis of those assurances, I invite him not press them to a Division.

Iain Wright: The Minister has clarified many of my concerns, but some remain. This is another example and illustration of the Minister and his team legislating in haste. They may have to unravel much of the Bill in subsequent legislation in the next few months and years. I hope that he keeps the Opposition informed about discussions with his colleagues in DCLG, because I do not want local authorities to be liable for anything that could harm them financially in the next few years.
	I hope that the guidance is slightly more than just that. It would have been a good idea to subject it to the negative resolution of the House. The Minister could have reflected over time and perhaps tabled a Government amendment on Report to that effect, but alas, that option is not available to us.
	I am anxious to move proceedings on. I hope the Minister and his team will keep us informed. I understood him when he said that I was unduly concerned, on which basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8
	 — 
	Transfer of other property

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment 65, page 6, line 38, at end add-
	'(11) The Secretary of State before making a property transfer scheme shall consult with-
	(a) the local authority;
	(b) the current owner, if not the local authority;
	(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.'.
	An identical amendment was tabled in the other place by the noble Baroness Sharp of Guildford, and the rationale behind the proposal remains sound. The clause allows the Secretary of State to "make" a property transfer scheme, which might involve the transfer of IT equipment and other assets. I mentioned last night the weakness in the Bill regarding consultation, and amendment 65 would improve the consultative process. It seems perfectly reasonable to the Opposition that the local authority and the current owner-if that is not the local authority-are consulted to ascertain what should happen to other property or assets, and whether they could be used elsewhere in the area for alternative educational provision.
	In speaking to the identical amendment in the other place, Baroness Sharp also said the clause does not mention consultation with interested parties that might be affected by such a transfer, such as catering contractors. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and I made a similar point last night about proper consultation with hard-working staff within the estate, such as catering and cleaning staff, as well as consultation on other assets such as IT equipment.
	The amendment would mean a much smoother transfer from the existing school when it converts to academy status. The Minister in the other place said that he would reflect on the matter, and I believe that clause 10 arose as a result of that reflection. However, what should happen to other property, because that too should be subject to wider consultation? There should be proper consideration on important assets, of which the most important are the people who will be affected by the transfer. By doing so, we would ensure a much smoother, less painful and more considered transfer.

Nick Gibb: Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State the power to make a scheme to transfer the property of a maintained school in respect of which an academy order has been made. Amendment No. 65, ably moved by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), would require the Secretary of State to consult the local authority or other owner or any other appropriate persons before making a property transfer scheme that would affect, among other things, desks, computers and the assets of any existing school.
	In the case of converting academies, we intend that there should be a seamless transfer between the existing maintained school and the academy, as part of which the school will clearly need to be able to continue to use its property, and to take advantage of contracts into which it may have entered, such as those for cleaning, catering and insurance. It may also need to transfer the benefit of trust funds left in trust for pupils or the school. The trust-say, a bursary for art left to the school many years ago in the will of a benefactor-may well mention the name of the predecessor school, and clause 8 would enable it to be transferred to the new entity of the academy.

Jeremy Corbyn: In this consultation, is there a specific undertaking given by the Government that in any transfer they would consult the staff or staff organisations of those employed by contractors in one building, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) pointed out in his contribution?

Nick Gibb: In earlier debates we talked about TUPE. If staff are subject to the TUPE regulations, all the relevant consultation processes would apply. But if the hon. Gentleman is talking about a contractor who works neither for the previous maintained school or the local authority, and who will not become an employee of the academy, his or her employment rights continue to lie with the contracting company, not with the predecessor school or the academy.

Jeremy Corbyn: My point is that if there is a contract for, say, computer maintenance, with clear employment implications, and it is transferred, the employment requirement also carries on. If it is not transferred, there would be employment implications to which the Secretary of State might be blind because he is looking only at the transfer of property.

Nick Gibb: In those circumstances, the contract would transfer under this clause, but the employment rights would be between the company that is the subject of the contract and the employee, who is not employed either by the predecessor school or the successor academy. The employment rights would not change because the contract would continue with the employer, who would not change.
	I should say that we anticipate that the making of any scheme under the provisions of this legislation will be rare. We hope that, in most cases, the transfer of property in connection with a school converting to an academy would be, as now, by agreement among the parties. In most circumstances, a transfer of contract would take place by agreement. That would be our starting point for any property transfer, and this would ensure that all those with an interest in the transfer of such property would be involved in negotiations about their potential transfer. Therefore, we would not get to the point of considering making a scheme under this clause until such discussions were exhausted. It is therefore inconceivable that anyone with an interest in the property to be transferred would not be consulted on a possible transfer in advance of any scheme being made. There is no reason why the Secretary of State would go to the trouble or expense of making a scheme if matters could be resolved amicably. There might be some contracts though, where the other party might try to use a transfer to obtain further financial benefit. The possibility of the making of a scheme would remove that incentive. The provision is an attempt to prevent the possibility that someone might be able to leverage financial compensation, knowing that the transfer has to take place. It is to avoid that possibility that this clause is in place, so that the Secretary of State can make a transfer against the wishes of people who are party to the contract.
	The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Hartlepool to withdraw it.

Iain Wright: In the large amount of time I have available, I would like to say that the Minister has explained a lot, and to be fair he has gone some way further than the Minister in the other place-
	 Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 19 July).
	 The Chair put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D), That the amendment be made.
	 Question negatived.
	 The Chair then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
	 Clauses 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clauses 11 to  13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Schedule 1 agreed to.
	 Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Schedule 2 agreed to.
	 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill
	 The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again (Programme Order, 19 July).
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Progress reported; Committee to sit again on Monday 26 July.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Adjournment of the House (27 July)

Motion made,
	That, on Tuesday 27 July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any message from the Lords has been received, any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported, and he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.- (Sir George Young.)

Hon. Members: Object.

JOHN MCGRATH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.- (Miss Chloe Smith.)

Anna Soubry: Before I begin the Adjournment debate I will let hon. Members leave, as I anticipate and understand they will, given the hour.
	As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I bring to the House's attention a very serious and tragic matter. It is almost a year to the day since John McGrath was killed by his grandson, William Barnard. John McGrath's wife, Mabel, was seriously injured in that unfortunate incident. William Barnard was sentenced last month and is now in Rampton secure hospital, where he will be, no doubt, for a considerable time, because at the time of the incident he was seriously ill, suffering from paranoia and schizophrenia. Those who were supposed to be in charge of his care in the mental health services team available to him have helpfully provided a report that goes into considerable detail about the events that led up to that dreadful incident.
	I will not go into the detail of that report. It is available for anybody to read if they contact me or Nottinghamshire Healthcare. However, it is clear from the report that there was a significant and serious failing in the care and supervision that should have been enjoyed by William. That is deeply regrettable, because this incident happened without that care and supervision. Had he had it, this tragedy would not have occurred. I am grateful that the Minister has come along today, and I know that, if time allows, he will meet the family. On their behalf, may I extend to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, their thanks for allowing me to address the House in this way? In short, they are very keen to ensure that John McGrath did not die in vain.
	The report contains many recommendations. The NHS trust in Nottinghamshire, Nottinghamshire Healthcare, assures me that it has learned many lessons and has said that it will not happen again, as a result of the recommendations that it is determined to implement. However, through this debate, I want on behalf of the family to ensure that everyone-every team, every trust, every authority-not only reads the report, but understands the failings that it identified and is made aware of the recommendations that it contains, in order to ensure that such a tragedy never occurs again anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
	I will quote from the report in time, but I would like to begin by talking briefly about John McGrath. John earned the nickname Dr John, because of his kindness and his willingness to help anyone who came his way, in any way that he could. At the time of his death he was almost 82, and he and Mabel lived in Stapleford, a small town in my constituency. William was the son of their youngest daughter Kathleen. The couple had three other children, all of whom are in the Public Gallery today, as is Mabel. Her other grandchildren, and William's sister and her boyfriend are also here.
	As the report says, William Barnard is part of a large and supportive extended family, who played a significant role in providing care for him under extremely difficult circumstances. I have met the family and they are remarkable. They are an example to us all of the sort of love and support that we wish we could all enjoy. They are good people. Indeed, it is perhaps testimony to the sort of people the family are that they have come to this place today with a file containing other cases-cases that I know will cause the Minister great concern, as they concern us all-cases of other people who were meant to be in the care of mental health teams and workers, but who unfortunately did not receive the care and support that they should have had, and either killed or injured other people. I know that the Minister will take that dossier and read it.
	It is because of the love and support within that family that they have always had great concern for William, to whom I want briefly to turn. In his late teens, he began to exhibit signs of a serious mental illness. He spoke to his mother, who at that time was training to be a nurse. She knew that there was a problem, and together they engaged with mental health services. Again, I will not go into all the detail-the appendix to the report makes clear some of their dealings with mental health services-but it is clear that, from 2002, he exhibited many of the symptoms of a serious mental illness. That, if I may say so, was clear for all to see.
	I am no expert, but if I may say so, in 2007 William was exhibiting some of the stereotypical behaviours of somebody in need of serious help and assistance. There were a number of unfortunately very typical symptoms shown by people who experience such an illness, but the important features included a non-engagement with, and suspicion of, mental health care workers and their team. There was also a lot of evidence that William was at great risk of inflicting serious harm to himself through self-neglect. I would say that there were also features-I have read about them in the appendix-that should certainly have caused those responsible for his care to be alerted to a potential risk to other people.
	Today I was shown a photograph of Will, as he was known by his family, from when he was well. He was described by his family to me as a gentle giant, and in the photograph-I am sure that the family and he will forgive me for saying this-one can see a rather chubby-faced young man, and he is smiling. He looks happy, and he is clearly well. That stands in sharp contrast to the photograph that has appeared in some of the local papers-understandably so-of William on his arrest. In that photograph, he is a gaunt, haunted young man. That just shows how his illness had affected him.
	In 2007 going into 2008, William was sectioned, which was largely due to the efforts of his mother. Again, it was clear that he had a problem, with a lack of engagement with, and a great suspicion of, those charged with his care. Indeed, he escaped from hospital in Derby. He was, in effect, captured-again, it is thanks to the family that he was detained-and he returned to hospital, before being discharged in due course from that Mental Health Act order and returning to Stapleford, into his loving and caring family.
	Because of the nature of William's illness, he should have been looked after by the assertive outreach team. In my work as a criminal barrister, I have represented a number of people who have suffered from mental illness. I have come into contact with some of the people who work with people with mental health difficulties and serious mental illnesses, and I have not met one who did not have the most remarkable skills, and a commitment to the person in their charge. They perform a difficult job, and often struggle to resolve huge conflicts. The outreach team in this case was well staffed and well equipped. According to the report, its members were trained. So this was not one of those cases involving a pitiful lack of funding or staff, or any other such deficiency. There were enough people; that was not the problem. The problem was a lack of care and supervision. No one took responsibility for William's care. According to the dossier that the family has handed to me, that is all too common a feature of these terrible tragedies.
	In December 2008, William refused to take his medication. That is typical of people with these conditions. He did not take his medication for some seven months before the incident, and those charged with his care knew about that. There were 30 attempts to make contact, but they resulted in only four face-to-face meetings, some of which were only fleeting. For four months before the incident, he was not seen by any professional health team workers at all. There were, however, 11 recorded occasions on which the family contacted the assertive outreach team, and 13 other instances in which other people and agencies, including the pharmacist and even the police, contacted the team to express their genuine, well-founded concerns.
	The report talks about an "excessive passivity" in the management of William's case, and a lack of information and detailed knowledge. It describes a breakdown in the assertive outreach team's function. Concern was expressed by some workers, and I do not seek in any way to go behind that. No doubt there were people who were there to look after William and who had concerns about him, but the lack of communication and the systemic failings meant that no positive action was taken. There was no proper analysis of the signs of William's deterioration. According to the report, there was "confusion" and "inaction", as well as ineffective leadership and absent leadership. The report is a damning indictment of what happened in this case. It reveals a systemic failure.
	I want to give the House an example, which makes profoundly sad reading. On 20 April, a meeting was called to consider the information that had been placed before the team. It was decided that Will would be monitored for six weeks, after which time a further meeting would be held to reassess his case and to decide whether he should be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. No one made a proper note of what was to happen, however; certainly, no one carried out any work. No review date was set, and there is no record of any action being taken. Worse still, perhaps, was the fact that no attempt was made to see Will for a month.
	On 15 June, reports were received from the police and from the pharmacist, who, according to the report, did a remarkably good job of trying to get this young man the help he needed. There were also reports from the family. All kinds of alarm bells should have been ringing loudly at this point, but again, nothing was done or planned. On 24 July, Will was deemed to be an acute risk, not only to others but-most importantly, it could be said-to himself. There was another failed visit. Those who attended his flat saw blood on a door handle, and strange writings and other things on his door. All that clearly indicated that this young man was in desperate need of assistance. Again, his family was spoken to, and his grandfather spoke of his grave concern for the grandson he loved so much. And that grandson loved him and saw him very much as a father figure. A request for a Mental Health Act assessment to be carried out that very day, as it should have been, was turned down, and a decision was made to wait until the following Monday. By then, of course, it was too late, for it was on that very day that this dreadful incident took place.
	The real question to be asked is, "What is to be done, and why are we in the House of Commons raising this matter?" We know that there is to be a report from the strategic health authority, and we look forward to reading its comments and recommendations. We believe that there will also be a coroner's inquest report, as well as the report to which I have referred.
	As I have said, lessons must be learnt, not just by Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust-which has given me an assurance, for whose assistance I am grateful, and to whose representatives I have spoken at length-but throughout the country. We are keen to ensure that when reports such as this are produced, whatever tragedy they concern, it is not one of those cases in which all that happens is that someone says, "Yes, we will carry out all the recommendations." Perhaps that is done for a short period, but there is no long-term, regular audit to ensure that everything that should have been put right has indeed been put right for the future.
	The other thing that everyone wants is for families to be far more involved in the care of people like Will who mean so much to them. According to the report, there was a lack of interaction, and we want that to change. Of course there are some cases in which the family does not need to be involved, and of course there are real conflicts over the autonomy of a patient; but in this case, as in so many others, the people involved should have been listened to, and should have been involved to a greater extent. It could be said that William's grandparents, Mabel and John, were themselves vulnerable people to whom a duty of care was owed. They should have been listened to, and they should have been involved.
	As a result of an Act introduced by the last Administration, those who work with people who suffer from the sort of illness from which William Barnard suffered, and still suffers, have powers to enter homes. They also have powers to ensure that someone who should be taking medication and is not doing so can be "recalled"-a criminal barristers' term-to hospital. I ask the Minister to ensure that everyone involved in local health services is aware of those powers and willing to use them, and that the assertive outreach teams that exist throughout the country do exactly what it says on the tin, and are assertive in their care and support.

Paul Burstow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on securing what I think is her first Adjournment debate. Adjournment debates provide an opportunity for issues such as this to be debated in the House, and for the Government to account for what they are responsible for and ensure that others do the same. It is entirely appropriate for such a tragic and distressing case to be raised in an Adjournment debate.
	Our thoughts must go first to the family whose lives have been turned upside down by this devastating incident. I offer them my deepest sympathies. As my hon. Friend said, members of the family are in the Gallery listening to the debate, and I look forward to meeting them afterwards and discussing the case with them directly. I fully understand their desire to ensure that something positive comes out of this terrible tragedy. As my hon. Friend said, our priority now is to ensure that the NHS learns from the incident, at a local and also, where appropriate, at a national level. I have asked my officials to look carefully at the issues raised by the case as they consider the future direction of mental health policy.
	I shall say a little more about the national context later, but let me begin by focusing on the local issues. As my hon. Friend explained, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust launched an internal investigation, which reported in April. It is a frank and honest account of what went wrong, and it gives the local NHS a good basis on which to improve the safety and effectiveness of its mental health teams. All that precedes the full external and independent investigation that the strategic health authority will commission in the near future. The trust has assured me that since the internal report came out it has taken active steps to address the weaknesses identified. It tells me that it is improving records management, strengthening communication between teams and reviewing its policy and procedures for assertive outreach. It is also addressing the way that mental health teams assess and manage risk, as well as looking at leadership issues and how they manage a patient's condition over the long term.
	In addition, the trust has reviewed the cases of every patient using assertive outreach services to ensure that their care is not being compromised by the same failings. It has commissioned an external review of its assertive outreach teams, which is due to report in a fortnight. I have been reassured that the trust's board will examine the findings and respond swiftly and diligently to them. My hon. Friend and I would agree that all that work must feed directly through into better and safer practice on the ground. Crafting objectives and principles is one thing; achieving tangible improvements to practice is quite another.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the issues of strong leadership and clear lines of responsibility in assertive outreach teams. I can tell her that what should happen is that every assertive outreach patient has a named care co-ordinator. The co-ordinator takes overall responsibility for the appropriate assessment, care and review of the patient. There is no nationally prescribed model for who must take on that responsibility. I do not think that it is sensible to start prescribing how local teams are structured or run through a mandatory code. After all, patients' needs will differ, and so will local circumstances.
	However, there must be clarity. Everyone should know who is responsible for what, and people should be properly qualified, skilled and supported to discharge their responsibilities. The trust accepts that point. It tells me that it has set out a clear process for responding to service users who have not adhered to the agreed level of contact. Team managers are now responsible for monitoring that. I also understand that a risk assessment expert has spent a week with the assertive outreach team and is now developing a risk training programme for all staff. That training will be delivered in October.
	Building on that point, I have also asked the trust about its quality assurance procedures. Assertive outreach obviously depends on strong relationships across different teams. That can be hampered if people change jobs, or if the continuity is broken in some other way, so the right quality assurance process is vital. Change has to be embedded within the organisation through regular and robust assessment of the competency of assertive outreach teams. In this regard, the trust tells me that it has improved clinical and managerial supervision as well as its performance management arrangements. For instance, attendance at multidisciplinary team meetings is now compulsory for anyone involved in a patient's care. Team managers now carefully monitor attendance at these meetings, and ensure that all actions coming out of the meetings are properly followed up.
	I am keen that lessons from this tragedy are shared and absorbed by the rest of the NHS. In our White Paper, we talk about an NHS freed from the endless succession of top-down mandates and departmental circulars. That is the right approach. We want to replace command and control with much stronger local accountability, with councils in particular taking a much stronger role in working with the NHS and holding it to account. We have also said that the NHS will focus much more on achieving better outcomes; there is a debate to be had about what those outcome measures will be. A consultation is happening over the summer, and outcomes for mental health patients will form part of those discussions.
	However, cutting the Whitehall apron strings does not mean abandoning our duties to look at local incidents and consider national repercussions. I will not pre-judge the external investigation. My hon. Friend would not expect me to do that, but I can tell her that the external investigation will be sent to the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicides and Homicides by People with Mental Illness as a matter of course. The inquiry team will consider the findings as part of its regular reviews of homicide investigations. The National Patient Safety Authority would respond to any points of national concern raised by the independent investigation.
	In addition, my hon. Friend may be aware that the NHS already flags patient safety incidents via the NPSA's national reporting and learning service, and if a trend or pattern emerges the NRLS can issue an alert to all relevant providers. Those alerts would give advice to the NHS on how to prevent such events from occurring.
	My officials have contacted the NPSA about the specifics of this incident and it says no similar problems affecting other assertive outreach teams have been reported to it. Therefore, I will be particularly interested to see the dossier of evidence and I will follow that through.

Mary Macleod: This incident was very movingly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and I do not think it is an isolated incident-I think it has happened elsewhere around the country. Can the Minister give an assurance that the lessons from this case will be learned across the country and that it will change the way things are done in the future?

Paul Burstow: In terms of the systems as they work now, we will do all we can to make sure that that learning is embedded, but I am concerned that my inquiries today have shown that the NPSA was not aware of this dossier and I will therefore look into that, and look at the dossier itself in order to see what it can teach us.
	However, I want to reassure both hon. Ladies-and other Members-that if the independent investigation were to make recommendations with national implications, we would look at them very closely and make sure they were translated into action and learning around the country.
	Let me end by saying that mental health professionals have an extremely difficult and challenging role; the hon. Member for Broxtowe was right to acknowledge that. The judgments they make are often finely balanced, and the risks they shoulder are considerable. Most professionals are doing an excellent job, and we ought to acknowledge that while also being concerned where practice falls short, but sometimes there are failures in care that could and should have been avoided. Tragedies like the case of John McGrath demonstrate the need for constant vigilance, scrutiny and self-improvement.
	When such tragedies do happen, it is vital that all responsible authorities, both local and national, are honest about the weaknesses and diligent about putting things right for the future. Like the hon. Lady, I will take a close personal interest in the independent investigation and the coroner's report. I want to ensure that this incident leads to improvements, because that is probably the only consolation that can come from such a tragedy.
	That is my message to the McGrath family and the hon. Lady who has secured the debate tonight. I look forward to meeting the family shortly to discuss these matters further and to working with colleagues across the House to make sure our mental health services protect and give good quality care for people with mental health needs.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.